Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri S Srinivasa Reddy vs Smt Sudha Rao W/O A P And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|22 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO.235 OF 2019 ALONG WITH REVIEW PETITION NO.236 OF 2019 AND REVIEW PETITION NO.237 OF 2019 IN R.P.NO.235/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri S. Srinivasa Reddy S/o Late Verma Reddy Aged About 47 Years R/o. No.11729, Trotter Point No.CC, Clarks Ville Marle Land United States of America-21029. Represented by his GPA Holder and his mother Smt. Lalitha W/o Late Verma Reddy Aged about 58 Years R/at No.7/7, 18th Cross 20th Main Road Vijayanagar Bengaluru – 560 040.
(By Sri. C.M. Nagabushan , Advocate for Sri T. M. Venkatareddy – Advocate) ... Petitioner AND:
1. Smt. Sudha Rao W/o A. P. Rao Aged about 74 years R/at Sangeetha Apartment 18th Cross, Malleswaram Bengaluru – 560 003.
2. Sri Chandrashekar Nayak S/o R. Verma Nayak Aged about 38 years r/at No.168, ITI Layout Marathahalli, Nagarbhavi Bengaluru – 560 072.
... Respondents This Review Petition filed Under Section 114 r/w Order 47, Rule – 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to review the judgment passed in MFA No. 3057/2018 dated 14/06/2019 and affirm the order of temporary injunction passed on I.A. No. 2 in the aforesaid Original Suit No. 2918/2017 dated 12.03.2018.
IN R.P.NO.236/2019 BETWEEN:
Smt. Dr. Ananda Lakshmi W/o Dr. Aryakandy Ramachandra Aged about 50 years R/o Gurabi Batha Riyadh – 11422, K.S.A Represented by GPA Holder Sri. K. Kasiyappan S/o Late Kojujunju Aged about 72 years R/at 5th Main Chamundeshwari Layout Vidyaranyapura Post Bengaluru – 560 097.
... Petitioner (By Sri. C.M. Nagabushan , Advocate for Sri T. M. Venkatareddy – Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Sudha Rao W/o A. P. Rao Aged about 74 years R/at Sangeetha Apartment 18th Cross, Malleswaram
Order 47, Rule – 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to review the judgment passed in MFA No. 3058/2018 dated 14/06/2019 and affirm the order of temporary injunction passed on I.A. No. 2 in the aforesaid Original Suit No. 2914/2017 dated 12.03.2018.
IN R.P.NO.237/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri C. J. Ramesh S/o Sri Jayachandra Shetty Aged about 48 years R/o Bazaar street Chennarayapatna Town Hassan District.
... Petitioner (By Sri. C.M. Nagabushan , Advocate for Sri T. M. Venkatareddy – Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Sudha Rao W/o A. P. Rao Aged about 74 years R/at Sangeetha Apartment 18th Cross, Malleswaram Bengaluru – 560 003.
2. Sri Chandrashekar Nayak S/o R. Verma Nayak Aged about 38 years R/at No.168, ITI Layout Marathahalli, Nagarbhavi Bengaluru – 560 072.
... Respondents This Review Petition filed Under Section 114 r/w Order 47, Rule – 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to review the judgment passed in MFA No. 3059/2018 dated 14/06/2019 and affirm the order of temporary injunction passed on I.A. No. 2 in the aforesaid Original Suit No. 2912/2017 dated 12.03.2018.
These Review Petitions are coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the petition and order of this Court pronounced on 14.06.2019.
2. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that there is an error apparent on record because this Court has concluded that different documents relied upon by the parties as regards multiple proceedings cannot be accepted as proof of possession of either of the parties without trial. The subject property is a vacant site, and therefore, the better title will have to prevail even as regards possession. The petitioners have better title to the subject property. These aspects have not been considered.
3. This Court is of the considered view that these grounds would not indicate that there is an error apparent on the face of record. It is settled that error apparent on the face of record should not require delving into the reasons or into the records. Therefore, a review of the order would be impermissible. As such, the review petitions are dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the review petitions, the pending applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same are dismissed.
DKB.
SD/- JUDGE.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri S Srinivasa Reddy vs Smt Sudha Rao W/O A P And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
22 August, 2019
Judges
  • B M Shyam Prasad