Karnataka High Court
Ramanay S/O Dharamanayak Patil vs Sumitra W/O Ramanayak Patil on 25 October, 2025
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB
RP No. 100052 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REVIEW PETITION NO. 100052 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. RAMANAYAK S/O DHARAMANAYAK PATIL
AGE. 65 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
2. APPASAB ALIAS SHIVANAYAK
S/O DHARMANAYAK PATIL
AGE. 61 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date: 3. ANNAKKA W/O BABASAB DESAI
2025.10.30
15:51:06
+0530
AGE. 57 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.C/O. RAMANAYAK
S/O DHARAMANAYAK PATIL
R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
4. MEERA W/O YANKANAGOUDA NAIK
AGE. 55 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. GODAGERI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB
RP No. 100052 of 2025
HC-KAR
TQ. GOKAK
DIST. BELAGAVI - 591 107.
5. SUJATA W/O RUDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE. 53 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
C/O. RAMANAYAK
S/O DHARAMANAYAK PATIL
CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUMITRA W/O RAMANAYAK PATIL
AGE. 76 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
2. KASHIBAI W/O DHARAMANAYAK PATIL
AGE. 71 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE
R/O. GANDHINAGAR,
HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580030.
3. PRAKASH S/O RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
AGE. 66 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANBHAVI VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-581105.
4. MANJUNATH S/O RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
AGE. 64 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB
RP No. 100052 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O. MADANBHAVI VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-581105.
5. SANTOSH S/O RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
AGE. 62 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANBHAVI VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-581105.
6. DEVARAJ S/O RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
AGE. 60 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADANBHAVI VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-581105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUN L NEELOPANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 &
R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2025 NOTICE TO R3 TO
R6 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF
CPC, PRAYING TO 1) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN
RFA CROSS OBJECTIONS NO. 100010/2018, BY
ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITION;
2) CONSEQUENTLY, RESTORE THE RFA CROSS
OBJECTION NO. 100010/2018 ON THE FILE AND
PLEASED TO CONNECT AND HEAR ALONG WITH RFA
NO. 100284/2018.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB
RP No. 100052 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This Court has disposed of the RFA Cross Objection No.100010/2018 [PAR/POS] - the Cross- Objections - by the order dated 11.09.2024. As a precursor to this Court's conclusion, this Court has observed thus:
"................................., this Court must opine that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the factual assertions as encompassed in the aforesaid submissions or the propositions of law. In fact, the propositions of law in this regard would be the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagesh Bisto Desai Vs. Khando Tirmal Desai, reported in (1982) 2 SCC 79 as also this Court's decision in Syed Basheer Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1984 KTK
159. Therefore, this Court must interfere with the civil Court's impugned judgment and decree declaring that the cross-objectors are -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB RP No. 100052 of 2025 HC-KAR entitled to a 1/3rd share in each of the suit schedule properties modifying the Civil Court's judgment and decree accordingly.
2. Mr. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has restored the petitioners' appeal in RFA No.100284/2018, which stood dismissed for default as of this Court's order dated 11.09.2024, and that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also reserved the appeal for judgment. The learned Counsel emphasizes that this Court, for complete adjudication of the questions that overlap in the cross-objections and the appeal, may review the order dated 11.09.2024 in exercise of the powers under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Mr. Arun L. Neelopanth, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, submits that this Court may defer considering the review petition as the appeal is heard and presently reserved for -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB RP No. 100052 of 2025 HC-KAR judgment, with the clarification that the judgment is yet to be delivered. In response, Mr. Dinesh M. Kulkarni canvasses that, for reasons of complete adjudication and lest there be any technical difficulties for decision in the RFA, this course of action would not be proper, especially because the petitioners are not heard by this Court at the time of disposal of the Cross objections.
4. These circumstances as stated afore and the submissions are considered. This Court is of the view that overarch object of any judicial proceedings is to ensure that there is complete adjudication, and that if bona fides, as found by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.100284/2018, are made out to show that the petitioners have not prosecuted the appeal, the same must be considered to examine whether this Court must remain. This Court concludes that the petitioners must have another opportunity, and that in the peculiarities of this case, -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB RP No. 100052 of 2025 HC-KAR it would be just to exercise the power of review and recall the order dated 11.09.2024. Hence, the following:
ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. The judgment dated 11.09.2024 is recalled restoring RFA CROB No.100010/2018 to be tagged along with the appeal in RFA No.100284/2018.
[b] The learned counsels for the parties will be at liberty to file a certified copy of this order and seek orders for common hearing by both the appeal and cross -objection.
SD/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SA ct:sr