IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL REVIEW PETITION NOS.288/2017 & 369/2017 IN R.F.A.NOS.743/2003 C/W 190/2008 (PAR) BETWEEN SRI K V MURALIDHAR S/O LATE SRI K VENKAT RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AT NO.15/1, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU – 560004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI H.S.DWARAKANATH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI R A CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADV.) AND 1. SRI K V ANANDA RAO S/O SRI K VENKAT RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, AT NO.30, NEW NO.15, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560004 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O SRI PATEL CHIKKAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LR’S ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS R3 TO R5 3. SRI A C ANANTHASWAMY S/O LATE PATEL CHIKKA HANUMAIAH MAJOR, 4. SRI A C GURUMURTHY S/O LATE PATEL CHIKKA HANUMAIAH MAJOR, 5. SRI A C NANJUNDASWAMY S/O LATE PATEL CHIKKA HANUMAIAH MAJOR, NOS.2 TO 4 RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560026. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K SREEDHAR, ADV. FOR R1, V/O DT:6/4/18, NOTICE TO R3, R4 & R5 IS DISPENSED WITH, V/O DT:6/4/18, R3, R4 & R5 ARE THE LR’s OF R2.) THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:17/05/2017 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN RFA NOS.743/2003 C/W 190/2008(PAR).
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard.
2. In these review petitions, the petitioner is seeking review of judgment and order dated 17.05.2017 passed by this court in R.F.A. Nos.743/2003 C/w 190/2008 (Partition) on the ground that this court while passing the said judgment, has not followed the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5875-5876/2010 and thereby committed error apparent on the face of records.
3. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and order of this court, the review petitioner filed Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.33928-33929/2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petitions. The said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows:-
“ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.”
(Emphasis supplied) 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangadhara Palo Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 602] submits that filing or dismissal of an SLP do not come in the way of considering the review petitions.
6. In Gangadhara Palo’s case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, it was held as follows:-
“8. When this Court dismisses a special leave petition by giving some reasons, however meagre ( it can be even of just one sentence), there will be a merger of the judgment of the High Court into the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the Special leave petition. According to the doctrine of merger, the judgment of the lower court merges in to the judgment of the higher court. Hence, if some reasons, however meager, are given by this Court while dismissing the special leave petition, then by the doctrine of merger, the judgment of the High Court merges into the judgment of this Court and after merger there is no judgment of the High Court. Hence, obviously, there can be no review of a judgment which does not even exist.”
(Emphasis supplied) 7. Thus it is clear that if the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP leaves an indication that the matter was dismissed on considering the merits, the judgment of the High Court merges into the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Then, the said order is not open for review.
8. As noted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP held that there are no legal and valid grounds for interference which means the merits of the case was considered.
9. Thus the judgment of this court merged with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, reviewing the judgment of this court amounts to reviewing the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is impermissible.
Therefore, petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR