Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ziaulla vs Sri.B.S Shivashankar on 8 December, 2023
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44660
RP No. 309 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
REVIEW PETITION NO. 309 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
Sri. Ziaulla
S/O Sri Gulam Nabi
Aged About 74 Years
Residing At Gulampete Village
And Post Aldur Hobli,
Chikkamagalur Taluk,
Chukamagalur District
Pin 566101
...Petitioner
(By Sri. V.K. Narayana Swamy, Advocate)
And:
1. Sri.B.S Shivashankar
Digitally signed S/O Sri B.K. Shrungeshwaraiah
by VEENA Aged About 62 Years
KUMARI B
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. Smt. Prema
W/o. Sri B.S. Shivashankar
Aged About 57 Years
Both Are Residing At
Sriruvase Village And Post
Chikkamagaluru Taluk
Chikkamagalaur District,
Pin - 577101
...Respondents
***
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44660
RP No. 309 of 2023
This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read
with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying
to allow the review petition herein filed by the appellant against
the order/judgment dated 08-02-2022 made in
R.F.A.No.1978/2019 kindly be reviewed, in view of the facts
and the legal proposition of law highlighted in the petition in
the interest of justice and equity; pass such other orders or
directions as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances in the interest of justice, equity
and fairplay.
This Review Petition coming on for Orders, through
Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing, this day, the Court made
the following:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the review petitioner is
physically present and submits that, he is unable to
comply the office objections, since the review petitioner is
said to be not in the Country. He requests the Court to list
this matter after compliance of the office objections.
2. Perused the memorandum of review petition and
the office objections raised by the registry.
NC: 2023:KHC:44660
3. This is a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule
1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the CPC"),
seeking review of the judgment dated 08-02-2022, passed
by this Court, in R.F.A.No.1978/2019. The office has
raised the following five objections:
"1. How the above RP is filed when the counsel who
filed the above RP is not on record in
R.F.A.No.1978/2019, to be clarified.
2. Typed copy of Index to be produced.
3. Full cause title to be made in I.A for CD.
4. Delay of 461 days to be mentioned in IA for
CD.
5. Court fee of Rs.100/- to be made good."
4. According to the revision petitioner, the office
objection at Sl.No.1 regarding maintainability of the review
petition alone is required to be complied with. The said
Office objection being on the point of maintainability, the
petitioner was required to do the needful, provided he had
any avenue to cure it, by this time, which he did not
choose to do, for the reasons best known to him. Even
NC: 2023:KHC:44660
though he submits that the petitioner is abroad and not in
the Country, however, no material is placed by the
petitioner to show that from the date of filing of the
petition on the date 05-07-2023, till date, the review
petitioner is abroad and is not available in the Country.
Even otherwise also, it is not convinced that the presence
of the review petitioner is very much necessary to cure
and comply the office objections raised by the registry.
Under the said circumstance, it can only be inferred that,
for various other reasons, the review petitioner is dragging
on the matter without complying the office objections.
5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
R.P.No.330/2022 (Smt. Hanumakka and others Vs. R.S.
Prasad and Others), after referring to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.N. Electricity Board
and Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Anr. reported in AIR
1997 SUPREME COURT 1005 has made the following
observation:
NC: 2023:KHC:44660
"1. Registry has not raised an objection in the
matter as the above Review Petition has been filed
by a different counsel than the counsel who
appeared in CRP No.503/2019 which order is sought
to be reviewed. In view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr.
[AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1005] the Review
Petition cannot be filed by a counsel other than who
had appeared in the matter which is sought to be
reviewed.
2. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to issue
necessary instructions to the scrutiny officers in
relation thereto and verify the same while
scrutinizing the Review Petitions."
6. In the light of the above, the review petitioner,
even after undertaking to comply the said office
objections, since till date, has not complied the office
objections and unless the previous counsel, who,
admittedly, has not gone abroad and is available has not
come forward to file any review petition, the mere
contention that the petitioner has gone abroad and the
same is the reason for non-compliance of the office
NC: 2023:KHC:44660
objections, is not a convincing reason. As such, since the
office objections raised by the registry still sustains and
the petitioner has not complied the said office objections
till date, the present review petition stands dismissed as
not maintainable.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
