Tuesday, 21, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ramanay S/O Dharamanayak Patil vs Sumitra W/O Ramanayak Patil
2025 Latest Caselaw 9376 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9376 Kant
Judgement Date : 25 October, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Ramanay S/O Dharamanayak Patil vs Sumitra W/O Ramanayak Patil on 25 October, 2025

Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
                                                       -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB
                                                              RP No. 100052 of 2025


                           HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
                         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
                                            PRESENT
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
                                               AND
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                                REVIEW PETITION NO. 100052 OF 2025

                           BETWEEN:

                           1.    RAMANAYAK S/O DHARAMANAYAK PATIL
                                 AGE. 65 YEARS,
                                 OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                                 R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
                                 TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.

                           2.    APPASAB ALIAS SHIVANAYAK
                                 S/O DHARMANAYAK PATIL
                                 AGE. 61 YEARS,
                                 OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                                 R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
                                 TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
           Digitally
           signed by
           YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT  NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:           3.    ANNAKKA W/O BABASAB DESAI
           2025.10.30
           15:51:06
           +0530
                                 AGE. 57 YEARS,
                                 OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                                 R/O.C/O. RAMANAYAK
                                 S/O DHARAMANAYAK PATIL
                                 R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
                                 TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.

                           4.    MEERA W/O YANKANAGOUDA NAIK
                                 AGE. 55 YEARS,
                                 OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
                                 R/O. GODAGERI
                             -2-
                                  NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB
                                   RP No. 100052 of 2025


HC-KAR



     TQ. GOKAK
     DIST. BELAGAVI - 591 107.

5.   SUJATA W/O RUDRAGOUDA PATIL
     AGE. 53 YEARS,
     OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
     C/O. RAMANAYAK
     S/O DHARAMANAYAK PATIL
     CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
     TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.
                                    ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SUMITRA W/O RAMANAYAK PATIL
     AGE. 76 YEARS,
     OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD VILLAGE,
     TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580007.

2.   KASHIBAI W/O DHARAMANAYAK PATIL
     AGE. 71 YEARS,
     OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE
     R/O. GANDHINAGAR,
     HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
     TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-580030.

3.   PRAKASH S/O RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
     AGE. 66 YEARS,
     OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. MADANBHAVI VILLAGE,
     TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-581105.

4.   MANJUNATH S/O RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
     AGE. 64 YEARS,
     OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                              -3-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB
                                          RP No. 100052 of 2025


HC-KAR



      R/O. MADANBHAVI VILLAGE,
      TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-581105.

5.    SANTOSH S/O RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
      AGE. 62 YEARS,
      OCC. AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. MADANBHAVI VILLAGE,
      TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-581105.

6.    DEVARAJ S/O RAJASHEKHAR PATIL
      AGE. 60 YEARS,
      OCC. AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. MADANBHAVI VILLAGE,
      TQ.DIST. DHARWAD-581105.
                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.ARUN L NEELOPANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 &
R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2025 NOTICE TO R3 TO
R6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

       THIS   REVIEW    PETITION    IS    FILED    UNDER
SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF
CPC, PRAYING TO 1) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN
RFA    CROSS   OBJECTIONS     NO.    100010/2018,      BY
ALLOWING       THE     PRESENT     REVIEW       PETITION;
2)    CONSEQUENTLY,     RESTORE     THE      RFA   CROSS
OBJECTION NO. 100010/2018 ON THE FILE AND
PLEASED TO CONNECT AND HEAR ALONG WITH RFA
NO. 100284/2018.

       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -4-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB
                                              RP No. 100052 of 2025


HC-KAR



CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
             AND
             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                            ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)

This Court has disposed of the RFA Cross

Objection No.100010/2018 [PAR/POS] - the Cross-

Objections - by the order dated 11.09.2024. As a

precursor to this Court's conclusion, this Court has

observed thus:

"................................., this Court must opine that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the factual assertions as encompassed in the aforesaid submissions or the propositions of law. In fact, the propositions of law in this regard would be the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagesh Bisto Desai Vs. Khando Tirmal Desai, reported in (1982) 2 SCC 79 as also this Court's decision in Syed Basheer Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1984 KTK

159. Therefore, this Court must interfere with the civil Court's impugned judgment and decree declaring that the cross-objectors are

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB

HC-KAR

entitled to a 1/3rd share in each of the suit schedule properties modifying the Civil Court's judgment and decree accordingly.

2. Mr. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, the learned

counsel for the petitioners, submits that a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court has restored the

petitioners' appeal in RFA No.100284/2018, which

stood dismissed for default as of this Court's order

dated 11.09.2024, and that a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court has also reserved the appeal for judgment.

The learned Counsel emphasizes that this Court, for

complete adjudication of the questions that overlap in

the cross-objections and the appeal, may review the

order dated 11.09.2024 in exercise of the powers

under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Mr. Arun L. Neelopanth, the learned

counsel for the contesting respondent, submits that

this Court may defer considering the review petition

as the appeal is heard and presently reserved for

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB

HC-KAR

judgment, with the clarification that the judgment is

yet to be delivered. In response, Mr. Dinesh M.

Kulkarni canvasses that, for reasons of complete

adjudication and lest there be any technical

difficulties for decision in the RFA, this course of

action would not be proper, especially because the

petitioners are not heard by this Court at the time of

disposal of the Cross objections.

4. These circumstances as stated afore and

the submissions are considered. This Court is of the

view that overarch object of any judicial proceedings

is to ensure that there is complete adjudication, and

that if bona fides, as found by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court in RFA No.100284/2018, are made out to

show that the petitioners have not prosecuted the

appeal, the same must be considered to examine

whether this Court must remain. This Court

concludes that the petitioners must have another

opportunity, and that in the peculiarities of this case,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14261-DB

HC-KAR

it would be just to exercise the power of review and

recall the order dated 11.09.2024. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed. The judgment

dated 11.09.2024 is recalled restoring RFA

CROB No.100010/2018 to be tagged along

with the appeal in RFA No.100284/2018.

[b] The learned counsels for the parties will be

at liberty to file a certified copy of this order

and seek orders for common hearing by

both the appeal and cross -objection.

SD/-

(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SD/-

(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

SA ct:sr

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter