[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri B V Murthy vs Sri H Paramesh @ Pratap on 12 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52927
RP No. 521 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 521 OF 2024
IN
R.S.A. NO.704/2018 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.V. MURTHY
S/O VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDENCE OF MANJUNATHA NILAYA
3RD MAIN ROAD
9TH CROSS ROAD
HEMAVATHI NAGARA
HASSAN - 573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 1. SRI. H. PARAMESH @ PRATAP
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O MUTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT AREHALLI VILLAGE
K. HOSKOTE HOBLI
ALUR TALUK -73 213
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH &
SRI. B.R.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52927
RP No. 521 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47 (1)
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN RSA NO.704/2018(SP).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Court while passing an order on
R.S.A.No.704/2018, taken note of in spite of opportunity is
given to the appellant in R.S.A.No.704/2018, did not pay
the cost of 2,000/- as imposed on 31.05.2024 and further
cost of Rs.1,000/- on 14.06.2024 and even paper book is
also not filed and when there was a cross-objection, this
Court dismissed the R.S.A.No.704/2018 and considered
the R.S.A.CROB.No.6/2018 and disposed of the
R.S.A.No.704/2018 and R.S.A.CROB.No.6/2018.
3. Now, the review petition is filed before this
Court contending that earlier counsel on record has
returned the papers, but, he has not given Vakalath which
NC: 2025:KHC:52927
HC-KAR
was sought by him. In the meanwhile, matter came up
before this Court on 28.06.2024, after the retirement of
the case from Sri.A.S.Mahesh who returned the file with
no objection, certain papers pertaining to the matter was
also not returned, the petitioner was unaware because of
his age and certain age related ailments and the petitioner
could not inform that cost is imposed and due to ill-health
and non-appearance of the advocate when he retired from
the case, consequence of which rendered dishonour, the
petitioner has approached this Court by filing this review
petition.
4. The counsel appearing for the respondent has
filed statement of objections contending that review
petition is not maintainable. In paragraph No.3,
specifically stated with regard to imposing of costs and
non payment of costs and reason assigned by this Court
and also stated that even after filing of review petition
also, the same was dismissed and no sufficient cause is
shown for review the same. There is a deliberate
NC: 2025:KHC:52927
HC-KAR
negligence and lack of diligence despite repeated
indulgence shown by this Court by giving an opportunity,
now, cannot make an allegation against the Court that
Court has not given an opportunity and hence, cannot be
entertain the review petition.
5. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondent and also the
reasons assigned in the application and in the review
petition also not specifically pleaded on what date, file was
returned to the appellant. Even the counsel on record
before the Court also not filed any retirement memo to
retire from the case on the ground that he has already
returned the papers and this averment is against the
material on record. In the order sheet also it doesn't
discloses that the counsel on record filed any retirement
memo stating that he has already returned the papers and
also considering the reasons assigned in the application
and also reasons assigned in the review petition,
particularly in paragraph No.6, it is stated that he has got
NC: 2025:KHC:52927
HC-KAR
a good case and substantial case and petitioner was not
given an opportunity of being heard and this averment
made in paragraph No.6 is against the material on record.
This Court while disposing of R.S.A.No.704/2018, in the
first page of the judgment itself made it clear that inspite
of costs was imposed twice, the same was not paid and
hence, while dismissing the same, very same reasons
were assigned. Hence, the contention that no opportunity
was given cannot be accepted. However, the counsel
pointed out that second appeal is filed against the
divergent finding and also the suit is filed for the relief of
specific performance and having taken note of the said
fact into consideration and the objection statement also
very clear that inspite of opportunity is given, not utilized
the opportunity. When such objection is raised and also
considering the material on record, earlier cost was paid
subsequent to the dismissal of the R.S.A.No.704/2018 on
30.07.2025 that is subsequent to the dismissal of the
R.S.A. Subsequently, in review petition also, cost of
NC: 2025:KHC:52927
HC-KAR
Rs.2,000/- was imposed and the said cost was paid on
29.10.2025. Subsequently, when the review petition is not
pursued, once again cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed and
the same is also paid. Having taken note of all these
factors into consideration and considering the grounds
which have been urged, this Court felt that an opportunity
has to be given and an opportunity which was given was
not utilized by the counsel on record and also having
considered the fact that no retirement memo was filed and
even the averment made in paragraph No.6 also very clear
that papers were returned even prior to the disposal of the
case, but not made any effort to engage either any new
counsel and only allegation is made that counsel has not
given any Vakalath, but, no explanation with regard to
how he has received the papers without the Vakalath from
earlier advocate. Hence, review petition is allowed with
cost of Rs.25,000/- payable at the High Court Legal
Service Authority within two weeks from today. If cost is
paid, then only the petitioner will enure the benefit of this
NC: 2025:KHC:52927
HC-KAR
order and if cost is not paid, no modification in the earlier
order passed by this Court in R.S.A.No.704/2018, and if
cost is paid, list R.S.A.No.704/2018 on 12.01.2026.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
