Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka And Anr vs P. Seshareddy And Ors on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REVIEW PETITION NO.200010/2020
C/W
REVIEW PETITION NO.200011/2020
In R.P.No.200010/2020
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by
A) The Executive Engineer,
ID., UKP, S.B.C.Distributor No.5,
Bheemarayanagudi - 585 227,
Tq. Shahapur, Dist : Gulbarga at present Yadgir.
B) The Superintending Engineer,
I.D., UKP Canal Circle No.4,
Bheemarayanagudi - 585 227,
Tq. Shahapur, Dist : Gulbarga at present Yadgir.
.... Review Petitioners
(By Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. P.Seshareddy S/o P.C.Venkureddy,
Age : 63 years, Since deceased
Rep by his legal representative -cum-irrevocable
General Power of Attorney Holder
2
Kotemreddy Kodandarami Reddy
S/o Late Veera Reddy,
Age 84 years, Occ : Contractor,
R/o Flat No.403, Srinilaya Residency,
Magunta Layout, S.P.S.R.Nellore,
Andhra Pradesh State - 524 001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Water Commission,
Seva Bhavan, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi - 110022.
3. Pulagam Rama W/o late P.Sesha Reddy,
Age : 64 years, Occ: Housewife,
4. Pulagam Vamsikrishna Reddy
S/o Late P.Shesha Reddy,
Age : 43 years, Occ: Private Job,
5. Nulalapati Parvathi Reddy
D/o Late P.Sesha Reddy,
Age : 47 years, Occ: Housewife,
Respondents No.3 to 5 are
R/o Journalist Colony,
Jublilli Hills, Hyderabad,
Now R/at H.No.8-1-301, 302, Flat No.F2,
Lakshmisamskruthi Sarigama Apartment,
Shaik Peta Nala, Hyderabad - 500 008.
... Respondents
This review petition is filed under Section 114 and
Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code praying to allow
the review petition and modify the order dated 12.11.2019
insofar as it relates to condonation of delay whatsoever in
the event of the respondents No.3 to 5 filing an application
for setting aside the impugned order at para 11 of the
Order dated 12.11.2019, passed by this Hon'ble Court in
W.P.No.201321/2016 in the interest of justice and equity.
3
In R.P.No.200011/2020
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by
A) The Executive Engineer,
ID., UKP, S.B.C.Distributor No.5,
Bheemarayanagudi - 585 227,
Tq. Shahapur, Dist : Gulbarga at present Yadgir.
B) The Superintending Engineer,
I.D., UKP Canal Circle No.4,
Bheemarayanagudi - 585 227,
Tq. Shahapur, Dist : Gulbarga at present Yadgir.
.... Review Petitioners
(By Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. P.Seshareddy S/o P.C.Venkureddy,
Age : 75 years, Since deceased
Rep by his legal representative-cum-irrevocable
General Power of Attorney Holder
Kotemreddy Kodandarami Reddy
S/o Late Veera Reddy,
Age 80 years, Occ : Contractor,
R/o Flat No.403, Srinilaya Residency,
Magunta Layout, S.P.S.R.Nellore,
Andhra Pradesh State - 524 001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Water Commission,
Seva Bhavan, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi - 110022.
3. Pulagam Rama W/o late P.Sesha Reddy,
4
Age : 65 years, Occ: Housewife,
4. Pulagam Vamsikrishna Reddy
S/o Late P.Shesha Reddy,
Age : 45 years, Occ: Private Job,
5. Nulalapati Parvathi Reddy
D/o Late P.Sesha Reddy,
Age : 48 years, Occ: Housewife,
Respondents No.3 to 5 are
R/o Journalist Colony,
Jublilli Hills, Hyderabad,
Now R/at H.No.8-1-301, 302, Flat No.F2,
Lakshmisamskruthi Sarigama Apartment,
Shaik Peta Nala, Hyderabad - 500 008.
... Respondents
This review petition is filed under Section 114 and
Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code praying to allow
the review petition and modify the order dated 12.11.2019
insofar as it relates to condonation of delay whatsoever in
the event of the respondents No.3 to 5 filing an application
for setting aside the impugned order at para 11 of the
Order dated 12.11.2019, passed by this Hon'ble Court in
W.P.No.201087-88/2018 in the interest of justice and
equity.
These review petitions coming on for hearing, this
day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
Learned counsel for the review petitioners files a
memo stating that a Special Leave Petition is filed by the
present respondent No.1 in SLP No.6354-6356/2020 and
the same is allowed and the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court is restored.
Under these circumstances, the review petitions
have become infructuous. Accordingly, review petition are
dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sn
