Karnataka High Court
Kenchappa vs Chikkanna on 29 November, 2021
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
RP.1420/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
REVIEW PETITION NO.1420/2014
IN
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.532/2010
BETWEEN:
KENCHAPPA
S/O LATE BALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF HOSAHALLI,
GOLLARAPALYA,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 560 056. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.SREEDHAR, ADV. [ABSENT])
AND:
1. CHIKKANNA
SINCE DEAD BY L.RS.
1(A) DODDAMASAMMA
W/O LATE BALAIAH,
MAJOR,
1(B) CHIKKAMASAMMA
W/O LATE B. CHIKKANNA,
MAJOR,
1(C) KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
MAJOR,
1(D) GANGAPPA
S/O LATE B. CHIKKANNA,
MAJOR,
RP.1420/2014
2
(DISMISSED AS PER THE
ORDERS OF THE COURT)
1(E) C. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE B. CHIKKANNA,
MAJOR,
1(F) CHANDRA
S/O LATE B. CHIKKANNA,
MAJOR,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
CHIKKA SOLUR VILLAGE,
SOLUR HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK.
2. V.B.N. SINDHE
NO.57, 1ST FLOOR,
14TH MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
3. V.R.NARAYANA RAO
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS.
3(A) SARASWATHAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
3(B) SURESH
S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3(C) RAGHAVENDRA
S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 1345, 56TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN ROAD, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 040.
4. KAMALAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER L.RS.
4(A) SHANTHAKUMARI
D/O LATLE KAMALAMMA
AND K.V. GOVINDARAJU,
RESIDING AT NO. 5,
RP.1420/2014
3
GOVINDARAJANAGARA,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
4(B) G. SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU,
SINCE MIONOR REPRESENTED BY
SHANTHAKUMARI
D/O LATE KAMALAMMA,
SISTER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
RESIDING AT NO.5,
GOVINDARAJANAGARA,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 040.
5. H.V. RANGAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY L.RS.
5(A) SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE H.V.RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
5(B) NAGARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE H.V. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
5(C) RENUKAMMA
D/O LATE H.V. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
5(D) R. JAYARAM
S/O LATE H.V. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEAR,
LRS (A) TO (E) ARE RESIDENTS OF
HOSAHALLI GOLLAPRAPALYA VILLAGE
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
6. DODDAMASAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY L.RS.
APPELLANT IS ONE OF THE
LRS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
AND RESPONDENTS 7 & 8
ARE THE LRS OF THIS RESPONDENT.
7. KRISHNAMMA
D/O BALAIAH
RP.1420/2014
4
RESIDENT OF HOSAHALLI,
GOLLARAPALYA,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
8. CHIKKAMMA
W/O CHIKKANNA,
RESIDENTS OF CHIKKA SOLUR
SOLUR HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK.
9. D.V. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA SEETTY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR,
RESIDING AT DODDEGOLLERAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R5(A);
SRI B.M.C.RAJU, ADV. FOR R5(C);
SRI G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADV. FOR R5(D);
SRI RAKSHIT.K.N., ADV. FOR R5 (B, C & E);
SRI K.K.THAYAMMA, ADV. FOR R9;
R1(A) DECEASED, REP. BY LRS R7 & R8;
R1(A)(I) - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
R1(B) DECD, R1 (C-F) ARE THE LRS OF DECD R1(B);
R1(C), R1(E), R(F), R2, R3 (A TO C) R7, R4(A) ARE SERVED
AND UNREPRESENTED;
R4(B) IS MINOR, REP. BY R4(A)
V/O DTD 29.01.2020 APPEAL AGAINST R1(D) DISMISSED
FOR DEFAULT;
R6 SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LRS R7 & R8;
R1(B) SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LRS R1(C TO F);
R1(A) (I) IS R9 IS ALREADY IN PETITION)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
18/11/2014 PASSED IN RSA NO.532/2010, ON THE FILE OF
THIS COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
RP.1420/2014
5
ORDER
The appellant in R.S.A.No.532/2010 has filed this
review petition, assailing the judgment passed by this
court on 18.11.2014 in the said regular second appeal.
2. From the perusal of the grounds urged in the
memorandum of review petition, it is seen that the
review petitioner has virtually assailed the judgment
and decree passed by the first appellate court as well as
by the trial court and not even a single ground is urged
in the review petition pointing out the error apparent on
the face of the record in the judgment and decree of
which review is sought.
3. A reading of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, makes it very clear that the
review can be filed only in the event the review
petitioner has discovered a new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence
was not within his knowledge or could not be produced
by him at the time when the judgment and decree was
RP.1420/2014
passed on which the review is now sought for or on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record.
4. In the case on hand, no such ground has been
made out by the review petitioner which calls for the
review of the judgment dated 18.11.2014 passed by this
court in R.S.A.No.532/2010. Therefore, I find no merit
in this review petition. Accordingly, the review petition
is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
