M S Dharmalingu vs M/S C M R Janardhana Trust
2021 Latest Caselaw 1489 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

          R.P.No.12/2021 IN R.F.A.No.1302/2011

BETWEEN :

M.S.DHARMALINGU
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs.

1.      SMT.K.KALPANA,
        W/O LATE M.S.DHARMALINGU
        AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

2.      SRI M.D.PRATHIK DEV
        S/O LATE M.S.DHARMALINGU
        AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

3.      SMT.M.D.PRUTHVISHREE
        D/O LATE M.S.DHARMALINGU
        AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

        ALL R/AT DOOR NO.1206/2,
        2ND CROSS, SUBASH NAGAR,
        MANDYA DISTRICT.                   ...PETITIONERS

            (BY SRI S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADV.)

AND :

M/s C.M.R. JANARDHANA TRUST
A REGISTERED CHARITABLE TRUST
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.2
3RD CROSS, 6TH A MAIN ROAD,
                         -2-

HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK
BANGALORE-560043
REP. BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE
SRI K.R.LAKSHMEESH
S/O KADABA RAMASWAMY IYENGAR
R/AT DOOR No.A1, BLOSSOMS,
GOKULAM MAIN ROAD,
JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE                  ...RESPONDENT


      THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE OFFICE TO PUT UP
THE RECORD IN R.F.A.No.1302/2011 a) KINDLY PASS A
JUDGMENT AND ORDER ALLOWING THE REVIEW PETITION BY
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT MADE IN R.F.A.No.1302/2011 DATED
23.10.2020.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

This review petition is filed by the appellants

seeking review of the judgment made in RFA

No.1302/20111 dated 23.10.2020 by exercising the

power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.

2. This review petition is signed by the learned

counsel Sri.K.S. Raghavendra and is represented by the

learned counsel Sri. S.R. Hegde Hudlamane. Though

both these learned counsel have signed the vakalath

filed in the review petition, they were neither the

arguing counsel when the appeal was heard on merits

nor they were present at the time of the arguments. The

practice of filing of review petition changing the learned

counsel on record who argued the matter in the appeal

proceedings, is not justifiable. It is well settled that a

review is by no means an appeal in disguise. We do not

find any mistake or error apparent on the face of the

record resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, all the pending I.As. stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR