Karnataka High Court
Sri Doddayarraiah vs Smt Bhagyamma on 5 September, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36363
RP No. 365 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
REVIEW PETITION NO. 365 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DODDAYARRAIAH
S/O CHINNANNA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
2. SMT. SIDDAMMA,
W/O DODDAYARRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
3. SRI KENGANNA
S/O DODDAYARRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
Digitally signed
4. SRI B K MANJUNATHA
by JUANITA S/O KENGANNA,
THEJESWINI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
Location: HIGH AGRICULTURIST,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 5. SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O KENGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
6. SRI MAHADEVAPPA
S/O DODDAYARRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36363
RP No. 365 of 2024
7. SMT. BHAGYAMMA K
W/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
8. SMT DODDAYARRAKKA
D/O DODDAYARRAIAH,
W/O KATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BANGARIHATTI VILLAGE,
HUNASEKATTE POST,
BUKKAPATTANA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. TARANATH POOJARI., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MANJUNATHA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT BHAGYAMMA
W/O GIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O KURUBARAHALLI,
BUKKAPATTANA HOBLI
SIRA, TALUK-572102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI., ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE R/W ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P.NO.24235/2023 (GM-CPC) AND REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 06.08.2024 THEREIN AND DISMISS THE SAID
WRIT PETITION VIDE ANNEXURE-H, TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36363
RP No. 365 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
This review petition is filed by the
respondents/defendants, in W.P.No.24235/2023 seeking
to review the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by this
Court.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Taranath Poojari
arguing on behalf of the review petitioners sought to
contend that this Court has placed reliance on a decision in
the case of Smt.Sharadamma and Others vs. K.
Channegowda in W.P.No.12198/2017 dated 15.03.2019
and has proceeded to set aside the order of the Trial Court
and allowed I.A.No.XXI and further directed that the
jurisdictional police shall ensure that the orders passed by
the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, in I.A.No.1 shall be
complied. However, learned Senior Counsel submits that
there are other judgments of this Court which have taken
contra opinion to that of Smt.Sharadamma, which was
taken note of by this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:36363
3. In the considered opinion of this Court, merely
because, the learned Senior Counsel is seeking to place
reliance on certain other judgments which have taken a
different opinion in the matter of providing police
protection for implementation of the orders of the Court, it
would not come within the requirement of consideration of
a review petition, namely, "error apparent on the face of
the record". This Court has noticed in its order that the
petitioners herein have executed a registered sale deed in
favour of the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, any other
contention which is sought to be made in contravention of
the contents of the sale deed, would be an issue that is
required to be decided by the Trial Court after a full
fledged trial. At this juncture, this Court does not find any
"error apparent on the face of the record" and therefore,
the review petition stands dismissed.
4. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel while
pointing out to the photographs produced along with the
petition submits that there is a small residential building of
NC: 2024:KHC:36363
the review petitioners in the suit schedule property and
the order of temporary injunction is only regarding
cultivation of the lands. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel
submits that necessary observation should be made by
this Court in respect of the residential building which is in
occupation of the review petitioners. Learned Counsel for
the respondent/plaintiff submits that the
respondent/plaintiff will act only in terms of the order of
temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court and if the
injunction is only in respect of the cultivation of the lands,
only that much of the action will be done by the
respondent/plaintiff and she will not do anything in respect
of the residential building of the review petitioners in the
suit schedule property. The submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent is placed on record.
5. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
DL
CT: JL
