Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagamma vs Sri Thammaiah P on 14 November, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46268
RP No. 134 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REVIEW PETITION NO. 134 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA,
W/O LATE C.LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKEGOWDANAHUNDI
VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 311.
2. SRI.CHENNAKESHAVASWAMY,
S/O LATE C.LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKEGOWDANAHUNDI
VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 311.
3. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O RAMEGOWDA,
D/O LATE C.LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
Digitally signed by KOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ANUSHA V KASABA HOBLI,
Location: High K.R.PET TALUK,
Court Of Karnataka MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426.
4. SMT.SARASWATHAMMA,
D/O LATE C.LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKEGOWDANAHUNDI
VILLAGE, VARUNAHOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 311.
5. SMT.SUSHEELA,
W/O SRI GIRISH S.,
D/O LATE C.LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46268
RP No. 134 of 2022
SIDDEGOWDANA DODDI,
KEREGODU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK-571 446.
6. SMT. RENUKA L.,
W/O RAJE GOWDA,
D/O LATE C.LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKEGOWDANAHUNDI
VILLAGE, VARUNAHOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 311.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI THAMMAIAH P.,
S/O PUTTAIAH, MAJOR,
R/O CHIKKEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-571 311.
1(a) SMT. T. HEMAVATHI,
D/O. P. THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 531, VINAYAMARGA,
9th CROSS, SIDDARTHA NAGARA,
MYSURU - 570 011.
1(b) SMT. T. GIRIJAMBA,
D/O. SRI. THAMMAIAH P.,
W/O. MAYUR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 531, VINAYAMARGA,
9th CROSS, SIDDARTHA NAGARA,
MYSURU - 570 011.
2. SMT. NINGAMMA,
W/O LATE CHIKKAMUTTEGOWDA,
S/O LATE CHANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
R/O BANDIPALYA VILLAGE,
MYSORE TALUK -570 025.
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46268
RP No. 134 of 2022
2(a) SIDDEGOWDA,
S/O. LATE CHIKKA MUTTEGOWDA,
AND LATE NINGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT BANDIPALYA VILLAGE,
MYSURU TALUK-570025.
3. SMT.CHIKKATHAYAMMA,
D/O LATE CHANNAIAH,
W/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, MAJOR,
R/O CHIKKEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK,
PIN CODE-571 311.
4. SMT.PUTTATHAYAMMA,
D/O LATE CHENNAIAH,
W/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, MAJOR,
R/O CHIKKEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE-571 311.
5. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O SHIVANNA,
D/O LATE CHANNAIAH,
MAJOR, R/O KELAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE-570 008.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI SOMASHEKHAR KASHIMATH, ADV. A/W
SRI S.K.NIKHIL, ADV. FOR R1 (a & b);
R2 (a), R3, R4, R5(a) & R5(b) ARE SERVED]
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W
ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2021 PASSED IN RSA NO.
390/2011, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AND PASS
NECESSARY ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:46268
RP No. 134 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
This review petition is filed against judgment dated
26.07.2021 passed by this Court in RSA no.390/2011.
2. Learned counsel for review petitioners submitted
that said RSA no.390/2011 was listed along with RSAs
no.2265/2007 & 932/2003 and disposed of by common order,
without noticing pendency of applications filed under Order XLI
Rule 27 of CPC for additional evidence were not noted and no
orders were passed and therefore, judgment requires to be
reviewed.
3. On other hand, learned counsel for respondents
submits that review petitioners herein had filed appeal against
judgment passed by this Court before Hon'ble Supreme Court
and SLP(C) no.19194/2021 was dismissed on 26.11.2021.
Suppressing same, present review petition is filed. It was
submitted, this Court, at time of disposal, had considered all
contentions and passed reasoned order and there was no
ground for review.
NC: 2024:KHC:46268
4. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment.
5. Though review petition is filed on ground of
non-consideration of application for additional evidence, it is
seen in para 12 of petition that review petitioners have stated
that they have not filed any appeal or application before
Hon'ble Supreme Court against impugned judgment. It is seen
that this Review petition is filed on 02.02.2022 i.e., after
dismissal of SLP(C) no.19194/2021 filed by review petitioners
herein on 26.11.2021. Therefore, review petitioners are guilty
of suppression of fact and misrepresentation. That apart, it is
seen, this Court, while disposing of appeal along with
connected matters, has considered entire matter in detail and
passed a reasoned order. There does not appear any error
apparent on face of record leaving no scope for review. Hence,
review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
