Sri G Krishnamurthy vs The Joint Registrar Of
2022 Latest Caselaw 3705 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                          PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

                    R.P. NO.400 OF 2021
                             IN
                    W.A.No.703 OF 2020
BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY
       S/O LATE GANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
       PROPRIETOR OF SRI VINAYAKA BUILDERS.

2.     SMT. NEETHA KRISHNAMURTHY
       W/O G. KRISHNAMURTHY
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1404
       14TH FLOOR, B BLOCK
       SALARPURIASATTVA
       YESHWANTHPURA
       BENGALURU-560003.

                                              ... PETITIONERS
(BY MR. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    MR. SARAVANA S, ADV.,)

AND:

1.      THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
        CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
        BENGALURU REGION
        CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU 560018.
                            2



2.   RECOVERY OFFICER
     ZONE-II, NO.32 2ND FLOOR
     KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
     FEDERATION BUILDING
     RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

3.   MICO ASSOCIATES HOUSE BUILDING
     CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
     NO.290/2, LAKSHMI ARCADE
     WILSON GARDEN, OPP. SABARWAL RESTAURANT
     BENGALURU-560027
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

4.   MR. SURESHKUMAR S
     S/O M V SAMPANGIRAMAYYA
     NO.33, 1ST CROSS, NEAR ANJINEYA TEMPLE
     MALLASANDRA, T. DASARAHALLI
     BENGALURU-560057.

5.   MR. NAVEEN REDDY B J
     S/O B. JAYARAMA REDDY
     R/AT NO.27, 1 B MAIN ROAD
     MOHAN KUMAR NAGAR
     YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560022.

6.   MR. RAVISHANKAR
     S/O NAGARAJAPPA
     AGED MAJOR
     R/AT NO.904/1 OLD NO.21
     BAHUBALI NAGAR
     JALAHALLI VILLAGE MAIN ROAD
     JALAHALLI BENGALURU-560013.

7.   MR. THIRUPATHAIAH
     S/O PUTTAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     R/AT NO.8, NARAYANA REDDY LAYOUT
     PIPELINE ROAD, ABBIGERE
     CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BENGALURU-560090.

8.   MRS. SAVITHA
     W/O MR. L. SATHISHA
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
                                 3



       R/AT NO.5/1, 9TH C CROSS
       1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE
       KANNADA CHANDRODAYA SCHOOL GOKULA
       YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560022.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    MR. HARSHA H.M. ADV., FOR R3
   MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R1
R2, R4, R5, R6, R7 & R8 SERVED)
                             ---

     THIS R.P. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W 114 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDERS DATED 13.12.2021
PASSED IN W.A.NO.703/2020 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS
AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS R.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,              THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

Mr.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel for the

petitioners.

Smt.Vani H., learned Additional Government Advocate

for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel for the

respondent No.3.

This petition has been filed seeking review of the

judgment dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of

this Court in W.A.No.703/2020 by which the order passed by

the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was

upheld.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits

that from perusal of the judgment dated 13.12.2021 it is

evident that in substance, the appellant has been relegated

to avail of the alternative remedy and therefore, in view of

law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'TIN PLATE

COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR' (1998)

8 SCC 272, the Court should not have expressed the opinion

on merits of the case.

3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the

respondent No.3 while opposing the submission made by the

learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has invited the

attention of this Court to paragraph 11 of the judgment and

has submitted that review petition is bereft of merit.

4. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record. In the judgment dated

13.12.2021, this Court has held that the reliefs claimed in

the writ petition have rightly not been granted to the

petitioners in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and therefore, has upheld the order of

dismissal of the writ petition passed by the learned Single

Judge. It was not the case of the petitioners that any

alternative remedy is available to them and the petitioners

have not been relegated to avail of the alternative remedy.

Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in TIN PLATE

COMPANY OF INDIA LTD., supra has no application to the

fact situation of the case.

The judgment passed by this Court neither suffers from

any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face

of the record.

5. In the result, we do not find any merit in the review

petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV