IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA REVIEW PETITION NO.268 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) IN WRIT PETITION NO.13702/2012 BETWEEN:
Sri.P.M.MuniReddy, S/o A.Munireddy, Aged about 68 years, R/at, No.536, 62nd Cross, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010.
(By Sri.Papi Reddy, Advocate) AND:
1. K.Vijaya Kumar, S/o Y.Krishna Reddyk, Aged about 50 years, R/at No.171/2, Thoobarahalli, White filed Road, Bengaluru-560 076.
2. The Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bommanahali Zone, Bengaluru-560 076.
(By Sri. Shankar Reddy, Advocate for R1 R2 served-unrepresented) ... Petitioner … Respondents This Review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying to call for the concerned records and review the order dated 06.08.2018 passed in W.P.No.13702/2012 by allowing this review petition and dismissing the W.P.No.13702/2012 on grounds of justice and equity.
This Review petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This Court by the order dated 06.08.2018 had disposed off the writ petition No.13702/2012 on merits with certain observations. The present review petition is filed by the second respondent to review the order dated 06.08.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.13702/2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
3. Sri. Papi Reddy G, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner pointed out that in the above order, certain typographical errors have been occurred. Position of the parties, date of sale deed and suit numbers are wrongly shown and this Court also made clear that Civil Court shall not rely upon any order passed by the Joint Commissioner while deciding the suit. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that first respondent may join hands with plaintiffs. Hence he sought for review of the order passed by this Court.
4. Sri Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 fairly submits that the typographical errors may be rectified. He reiterated that it is for the parties to establish their title in respect of the sites in question independently before the competent authority in accordance with law. His submission is placed on record.
5. In view of the above, at paragraph-3, page-4 it is wrongfully stated that name of the respondent No.2 should be corrected as petitioner. At paragraph-5, respondent No.2 should be inserted instead of petitioner. In the same paragraph instead of respondent No.2, it should be corrected as petitioner; in the same paragraph, instead ‘suit came to be decreed’ it should be corrected as ‘suit came to be dismissed’.
6. In paragraph-6, instead of ‘respondent No.2 submits that, respondent No.2 also filed’, it should be corrected as ‘respondent No.2 submits that the father of the respondent No.2 also filed’. In the same paragraph, ‘in the said suit, admittedly both petitioner and second respondent are parties should be inserted instead of ‘4th and 2nd respondents are parties’.
7. In paragraph-7, page-6, ‘sale deed dated 16.11.1990’ should be corrected as ‘sale deed dated 19.11.2004’ and in the same paragraph instead of Village Panchayath, Tahasildar should be added. Further in the same paragraph, ‘by virtue of sale deed dated 16.11.1990’ should be corrected as ‘by virtue of sale deed dated 19.11.2004’.
8. In paragraph-8, in the 2nd line and in 12th line of the order ‘OS.No.7664/2014’ should be inserted in the place of ‘O.S.No.9577/2005’.
9. In the operative portion, it should be corrected as ‘it is made clear that the Civil Court has to decide the rights of the parties based on respective claims after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties independently and in accordance with law.’ With these observations, review petition is disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, IA.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SB