Karnataka High Court
Padmamma vs Smt. Durgamma on 1 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4477
RP No. 200030 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 200030 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. PADMAMMA
W/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD
R/OF KOTTAPALLI TALUK,
SEDAM DISTRICT,
KALABURAGI-585222.
2. LAKSHAMAMMA
D/O PADMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD
R/OF KOTTAPALLI TALUK,
SEDAM DISTRICT,
KALABURAGI-585222.
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S
3. SHASHIKALAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka D/O BHIMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD
R/OF KOTTAPALLI TALUK,
SEDAM DISTRICT,
KALABURAGI-585222.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4477
RP No. 200030 of 2024
AND:
1. SMT. DURGAMMA
W/O BHIMAPPA GOLLAR
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O KOTTAPALLI TALUK
SEDAM DISTRICT
KALABURAGI-585222.
2. SHIKHAMMA @ SHAKUNTALA
D/O BHIMAPPA GOLLAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD
R/O KOTTAPALLI TALUK
SEDAM DISTRICT
KALABURAGI-585222.
3. CHANDRAMMA @ CHANDRAKALA
D/O BHIMAPPA GOLLAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE
R/O KOTTAPALLI TALUK
SEDAM DISTRICT
KALABURAGI-585222.
4. PRABHAKAR
S/O BHIMAPPA GOLLAR
AGE: MINOR
THROUGH THE NEXT FRIEND
DURGAMMA W/O BHIMAPPA GOLLAR
AGE 71 YEARS
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE
R/O KOTTAPALLI TALUK
SEDAM DISTRICT
KALABURAGI-585222.
5. SMT. KANATAMMA
W/O RAMULU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O KOTTAPALLI TALUK
SEDAM DISTRICT
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4477
RP No. 200030 of 2024
KALABURAGI-585222.
6. SMT. LALITAMMA
W/O FAKIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O KOTTAPALLI TALUK
SEDAM DISTRICT
KALABURAGI-585222.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SEC
114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW
PETITION AND JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 25-01-2024
IN RSA NO. 200239/2015 AND REHEAR THE ABOVE APPEAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. In this review petition, petitioner is seeking recall of the
Judgment dated 25.01.2024 passed by this Court in RSA
No.200239/2015.
3. It is submitted by Sri. Shivakumar Kalloor, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the suit itself is not
maintainable and therefore, learned counsel contended that the
observation made by this Court relying upon the Judgment of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4477
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of REVANASIDDAPPA
AND ANOTHER Vs. MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS reported in
(2023) 10 SCC 1, and the finding recorded by this Court at
para 16 and 17 cannot be accepted.
4. Having taken note of the factual aspects on record that
the said aspect has not been raised before this Court at the
time of arguing the second appeal and even otherwise also
before the court below, no ground has been made out to
interfere with the Review Petition as there is no error apparent
on the face of the record under S.114 of the CPC.
5. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
sac
