[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. M.R.Lakshmanachari vs Sri. K.P.Narayanaswamy on 9 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1393
RP No. 557 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO.557 OF 2025
IN
R.S.A.NO.1065/2025 (POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M.R.LAKSHMANACHARI,
S/O SRI. RAMACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1857/5,
2ND CROSS, 4TH WARD,
PRASHANTHANAGAR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN
AND DISTRICT-562101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANOJ S.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SRI. K.P.NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE PILLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1857/5, 2ND CROSS,
4TH WARD, PRASHANTHANAGAR
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN
AND DISTRICT-562101.
...RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2025 PASSED IN RSA NO.1065/2025
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1393
RP No. 557 of 2025
HC-KAR
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER
COUNSEL TO ARGUE ON MERITS OF THE MATTER AND PASS
ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS DEEMS FIT BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.
The grounds urged in the review petition is that the mother
of the learned counsel for the review petitioner was
diagnosed with cancer and hence, could not effectively make
the submission before the Court.
2. On perusal of the records, it discloses that the
matter was disposed of hearing the learned counsel for the
respective parties. This Court having considered the factual
aspects of the case in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 and
considering the material on record, particularly in paragraph
No.11 comes to the conclusion that there was a sale in the
year 2006 and in turn, a second sale was made in favour of
the plaintiff in 2010 by Chaitra. Both the Courts have
NC: 2026:KHC:1393
HC-KAR
appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available
on record and all the documents clearly discloses that title
flows in favour of Chaitra and in turn Chaitra executed the
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and even extracted the
admission on the part of D.W.1 and D.W.2. The First
Appellate Court also re-appreciated the material on record
considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record and also taken note of the earlier judgment and
decree passed in favour of the defendant in
O.S.No.113/2012 and the same is only for protecting the
possession of the defendant and evicting the appellant under
due process of law. Subsequently, notice was issued and
thereafter filed the suit. Both the Courts have considered the
material on record in a proper perspective and hence,
dismissed the second appeal.
3. When this Court in detail considered the matter in
the presence of the respective learned counsel and also
taken note of the material on record, I do not find any
ground to consider the review petition when there is no error
apparent on the face of the record and a detailed order was
NC: 2026:KHC:1393
HC-KAR
passed at the time of disposal of the second appeal, which
runs to 13 pages. No ground is made out to review the
order passed by this Court when a detailed order has been
passed and no scope for reviewing the earlier order and the
learned counsel for the petitioner's mother was diagnosed
with cancer cannot be a ground to review the order, since
the same is considered at the time of admission. Hence, the
review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
