Karnataka High Court
H R Puttaswamy Gowda vs Sri H P Karthik on 13 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1224
R.P. No.243/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REVIEW PETITION NO.243/2024
BETWEEN:
H.R. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O VT RANGE GOWDA
HACCHADAMANE GRAMA
HALASUMANE POST
VASTHARE HOBLI
CHIKMAGALURU TQ-577101.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR D, ADV.,)
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. H.P. KARTHIK
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O H.R. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA.
2. SMT. SUMIKHA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
W/O H.P. KARTHIK.
BOTH ARE R/O HACCHADAMANE GRAMA
HALUSMANE POST, VASTHARE HOBLI,
CHIKMAGALURU TQ-577101.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKMAGALURU 577 101.
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1224
R.P. No.243/2024
CHIKMAGALURU 577 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. , HCGP FOR R3 & R4
R1 & R2 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
REVIEW PETITION BY REVIEWING THE FINAL ORDER DATED
11.01.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.19763/2022 (GM-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
GRANT COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
The present review petition is filed under Section 114 read
with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
seeking to review the order dated 11.01.2024 passed in
W.P.No.19763/2022 (GM-RES)
2. Sri. Prashanth Kumar D., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated
11.01.2024, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not complied with
the order under review, they failed to adhere to the undertaking
given before this Court. He further submits that respondent
Nos.1 and 2 have not filed an affidavit of undertaking as per the
NC: 2025:KHC:1224
order under review. It is also submitted that the contesting
respondents are not allowing the petitioner to reside in his own
house and there is a life threat to him. In view of the same, he
has filed OS.No.402/2021 against respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Wherein, the trial Court has granted interim protection by
directing Aldur police to give suitable police protection to the
petitioner. It is also submitted that one of the daughters of the
petitioner filed OS.No.25/2022 seeking partition of the property
and the said suit came to be decreed on 16.02.2024 and in the
said proceedings, the present property is not the subject matter
of the said suit and the present property is self acquired
property of the petitioner and the respondents son and
daughter-in-law are not permitting him to reside in the said
premises.
3. It is also submitted that this Court can exercise
power under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC if sufficient reasons are
pointed out to seek the recall/review of the order in support of
the contention and placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for
Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and
NC: 2025:KHC:1224
Others1. He seeks to review the order dated 11.01.2024
passed in W.P.No.19763/2022.
4. Though the notice on IA as well as on the main
matter was served to respondent Nos.1 and 2, they remained
absent.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for the official respondents
supports the order under review and seeks to dismiss the
petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant and learned HCGP, meticulously perused the
material available on record.
7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed W.P.No.19763/2022
assailing the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by respondent
No.4 - Assistant Commissioner, Chikamagaluru which has been
affirmed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner vide order
dated 01.09.2022. In the said proceedings, respondent Nos.1
and 2 have undertook that they would make separate entrance
to a room where the present petitioner could reside and they
(2005) 4 SCC 741
NC: 2025:KHC:1224
also undertook that they would keep the dog in the compound
and sought for modification of the impugned orders accordingly.
Based on the aforesaid undertaking by respondent Nos.1 and 2,
writ petition was disposed of by modifying the orders dated
18.04.2022 passed by respondent No.4 and 01.09.2022 passed
by respondent No.3 to the extent that petitioner shall make a
separate entrance to the room where the petitioner would
reside and the said undertaking shall be complied within a
period of two weeks and to that effect respondent Nos.1 and 2
were directed to file an affidavit of undertaking with this Court
within a period of four weeks from that day.
8. The material available on record indicates that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed the affidavit of
undertaking nor adhered to the undertaking given before this
Court. I do not find any error appearing on the face of record to
review the order as such but, however, there is sufficient reason
to review the order as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another
referred supra. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgment for reference are extracted herein below:
NC: 2025:KHC:1224
"89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides
for filing an application for review. Such an
application for review would be maintainable not
only upon discovery of a new and important piece
of evidence or when there exists an error apparent
on the face of the record but also if the same is
necessitated on account of some mistake or for any
other sufficient reason.
90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the
court which would include a mistake in the nature
of the undertaking may also call for a review of the
order. An application for review would also be
maintainable if there exists sufficient reason
therefore. What would constitute sufficient reason
would depend on the facts and circumstances of the
case. The words "sufficient reason" in Order 47
Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a
misconception of fact or law by a court or even an
advocate. An application for review may be
necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus
curiae neminem gravabit".
9. Admittedly, the writ petition was disposed of on the
solemn undertaking given by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and not
on merits of the case. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra and also
taking note of the fact that the respondents son and daughter-
in-law have not adhered to the solemn undertaking given before
NC: 2025:KHC:1224
this Court. Hence for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to
pass the following;
ORDER
i) Review petition is allowed.
W.P.No.19763/2022 is restored to file.
ii) Registry shall place the
W.P.No.19763/2022 before the bench having roster.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
