Basavaraj S/O Shankarappa ... vs Padmavathi W/O Laxmanrao Zille ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5561 Kant

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

           REVEW PETITION No.200036 OF 2021
                          IN
         REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.5033 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

SHRI BASAVARAJ
S/O.SHANKARAPPA CHOWDHRY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS
R/AT HOUSE NO.7/2/64
NEAR CHITRALEKHA TALKIES
BIDAR TOWN
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401                  ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANTHOSH PATIL FOR
    SRI ARAVIND M.NEGLUR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.     SMT.PADMAVATHI
       W/O.LAXMANRAO ZILLE
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
       OCC: AGRICULTURE
       R/AT VILLAGE MARKHAL
       TALUK BIDAR
       BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401
                                  2




2.   SHRI LAXMANRAO ZILLE
     S/O.CHANNAPPA ZILLE
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
     OCC: AGRICULTURE
     R/AT VILLAGE MARKHAL
     TALUK BIDAR
     BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401                ... RESPONDENTS

                           ***
     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 OF
CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2020
IN RFA.NO.5033/2011 & ETC.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT BENGALURU BENCH,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                             ORDER

This review petition is filed to review the judgment and

decree dated 27.11.2020 passed in RFA.No.5033/2011.

2. The petitioner claims that on 08.09.2020 when

RFA.No.5033/2011 was listed, the petitioner herein was not

represented. He further claims that though the appeal was

ordered to be listed on 16.09.2020, but it was called on

18.09.2020, on which date, after hearing the case on merits, it

was reserved for pronouncement of judgment. It is also stated

that "the petitioner further submits that his earlier Advocate is

not available to be engaged for the present petition".

3. This Court in terms of the judgment as referred above

tried to resolve the dispute between the parties. However, the

offer made by the appellants was not accepted by the

respondent and therefore, the case was taken up for disposal on

merits. Learned counsel for both the appellants and respondent

were heard and this Court after considering their contention has

disposed of the appeal on merits.

4. Now the review petition is filed by another Advocate

contending that he had deposited Rs.9,74,000/- before the trial

Court and that this indicated his readiness and willingness to

conclude the transaction. He alleged that the offer made to him

was not known and that he is now ready to accept the offer of

the appellants.

A petition to review a judgment can only be entertained to

correct any error apparent on the face of the record and is not

to be treated as an appeal. This court does not see any error on

the face of the record. Further, the counsel on record is not the

one who had represented before the Court in

RFA.No.5033/2011. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE LB