[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Denis Lobo vs Sri David Nixon D Souza on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15629
R.P. No.541/2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REVIEW PETITION NO.541/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DENIS LOBO
S/O LATE CHARLES LOBO
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. SMT. PATRICIA LOBO
Digitally signed W/O SRI. DENIS LOBO
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT
KARNATAKA NO.306 3RD FLOOR, CRYSTAL
ARC BUILDING, BALAMATTA ROAD
MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ELIZABETH RODRIGUES, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. DAVID NIXON D'SOUZA
S/O DENNIS D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
2. SRI. JOSEPH D'SOUZA
S/O DENNIS D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 ARE
R/AT. NEAR KEMMINJE TEMPEL
KEMMINJE VILLAGE, DARBE POST
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15629
R.P. No.541/2022
HC-KAR
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574202.
3. SMT. IDA D'SOUZA
W/O LOY CLAUDIUS D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT. D'SOUZA COMPOUND
KULSHEKARA, KAIKAMBA POST
MANGALORE, D K DISTRICT 575007.
4. SRI. K. SUNIL KUMAR SHETTY
S/O K. SANJEEVA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT K.S.K. COMPOUND
NEHARU NAGAR POST
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574204.
5. SRI. RAKESH S. KULAL
S/O SHESHAPPA KULAL
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NEKKARE HOUSE
SHANTIGODU VILLAGE AND POST
PUTTUR TALUK, D K-574208.
6. THE MCC BANK LTD
PUTTUR BRANCH
RERPESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574201.
7. THE MCC BANK LTD
HEAD OFFICE, MANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
ST. ALOYSIUS COLLEGE ROAD
HAMPANKATTA, MANGALROE, D K -575001.
8. SRI. N. SUDHAKARA SHETTY
S/O THYAMPANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15629
R.P. No.541/2022
HC-KAR
9. SMT. HEMALATHA S. SHETTY
W/O MR. SUDHAKARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
10. SRI. PAWAN S. SHETTY
S/O MR. SUDHAKARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
11. SRI. PRAJAN S. SHETTY
S/O N. SUDHAKARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 11 ARE
R/AT SHETTY FARMS
MUDUPINADKA, BADAGANNUR VILLAGE
PUTTUR TALUK. D.K.-574201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA M, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.
8924/2018 DATED 09/07/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.
ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT,
INCLUDING AN ORDER AS TO COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:15629
R.P. No.541/2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This review petition is filed by the petitioners, who
are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.8924/2018, seeking
to review the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by this Court
in W.P.No.8924/2018 (GM-CPC).
2. Smt.Elizabeth Rodrigues, learned counsel for
the review petitioners submits that the petitioners have
filed a suit against the respondents for the relief of specific
performance to enforce the agreement of sale dated
11.03.2016 and pay the advanced sale consideration of
Rs.1,72,55,378/- and the said suit is pending before the
trial Court. It is submitted that during the pendency of the
said suit, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit, sold the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.8 to 11,
hence, the petitioners filed IA No.14 seeking direction
against defendant Nos.1 to 3 to deposit Rs.1,26,00,000/-
before the trial Court. The said application came to be
allowed by the trial Court, which was assailed by the
defendant Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.8924/2018. It is further
NC: 2026:KHC:15629
HC-KAR
submitted that retaining the amount by the defendant
Nos.1 to 3 amounts to unlawful enrichment. It is also
submitted that the possession was handed over to the
review petitioners under the agreement and unlawfully
they were dispossessed. Hence, she seeks to review the
order dated 09.07.2021.
3. Per contra, Sri.M.Chidananda Kedilaya, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that there
is no error apparent on the face of the record to review
the order dated 09.07.2021. It is further submitted that
the order of this Court is challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court along with the order passed in the
connected writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s).16716/2021 vide order dated 29.10.2021 affirmed
the order of this Court. Hence, seeks to dismiss the
petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:15629
HC-KAR
4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides
and perused the order under review.
5. The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.14
in O.S.No.47/2017 seeking direction to the defendant
Nos.1 to 3 to deposit Rs.1,26,00,000/- before the trial
court. The said application was allowed by the trial Court,
which was challenged by defendant Nos.1 to 3 before this
Court and this Court, considering the rival submissions, at
para Nos.9 to 11, assigned reasons for allowing the writ
petition. The perusal of the reason indicate that the suit is
pending before the parties and the contentions urged with
regard to the deposit of amount is required to be
adjudicated before the trial Court including the contentions
urged in the petition.
6. It is also to be noticed that the order dated
09.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8924/2018 is
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)
No.16716/2021 vide order dated 29.10.2021. The
NC: 2026:KHC:15629
HC-KAR
operative portion of the said order dated 29.10.2021 reads
as under:
"Item 13 - SLP (Civil) No.16716/2021
We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed
by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is,
accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of."
7. Hence, I do not find any error in the reasoning
of this Court in the order under review calling for
interference in this petition. Thus, the review petition is
devoid of merit and accordingly the same is hereby
rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
