IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA REVIEW PETITION No.1140/2014 IN R.F.A. No.464/2002 (PAR & POS) BETWEEN SMT.SUBBAMMA DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1. SMT.R.NETHRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O N.MANJUNATH @ MANJUNATHA R/AT NO.547, AGRAHARA EXTENSION RAMANAGARAM TOWN – 577 501 2. SRI N.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A No.547, AGRAHARA EXTENSION RAMANAGARAM TOWN – 577 501 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. SRI R.N.BABU S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH MAJOR IN AGE 2. SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH SINCE DEAD REP. BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (A) SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS (B) SMT.SHAMALA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA MAJOR IN AGE R2(A) AND (B) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.32, HAROHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
3. SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH MAJOR IN AGE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.547, AGRAHARA EXTENSION RAMANAGARAM TOWN – 577 501 4. SMT.LALITHAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH MAJOR IN AGE R/AT DYAVERASEGOWDANA DODDI HAMLET OF VADDARAHALLI KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARAM TALUK – 577 501 5. SMT.KOWSALYAMMA W/O SHIVARAJU D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH MAJOR IN AGE R/AT RAMANAGARAM STREET HOSUR, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU STATE – 636 701 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.V.KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2013 PASSED IN R.F.A.No.464/2002 (PAR & POSS.), ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THIS R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The appellant No.1(a) and appellant No.2 in R.F.A. No.464/2002 on the file of this Court have come up in this review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 11.06.2013.
2. Admittedly, the aforesaid Regular First Appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 11.06.2013 in the presence of learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2(a), 2(b) and 4. In other words, the appeal was heard and disposed of on merits by this Court by the aforesaid judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant Nos.1(a) and 2 in the said appeal preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.34683/2013 before the Hon`ble Apex Court.
3. The certified copy of the order dated 22.11.2013 passed in the said proceedings would indicate that the Hon`ble Apex Court after hearing the arguments of learned senior counsel, who was appearing for the petitioners (review petitioners herein) for sometime, was not inclined to consider the special leave petition for admission. At that juncture, learned senior counsel had sought for permission of the Court to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to approach this Court seeking review of the order, which was under challenge in the said proceedings. Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the special leave petition as withdrawn with liberty as sought for by the petitioners.
4. The present review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 11.06.2013 on the ground that the provisions of Section 96 and Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, were not strictly applied while hearing the appeal in RFA No.464/2002 and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that the judgment passed in RFA No.464/2002 is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be reviewed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and perused the material on record. On going through the same, this Court would observe that the Hon`ble Apex Court while dismissing the special leave petition as withdrawn has not made any observation to the effect that the matter requires review by this Court. Per contra, it is at the request of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in the said proceedings, liberty was reserved to the petitioners therein to approach this Court while making an observation that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment dated 11.06.2013 rendered in RFA No.464/2002 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the same by this Court.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sma