[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Denis Lobo vs Sri N Sudhakara Shetty on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15627
R.P. No.542/2022
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.542/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DENIS LOBO
S/O LATE CHARLES LOBO
AGED 51 YEARS.
2. SMT. PATRICIA LOBO
Digitally signed W/O SRI. DENIS LOBO
by ARSHIFA AGED 47 YEARS.
BAHAR KHANAM
Location: HIGH BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO.306
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, CRYSTAL ARC BUILDING
BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALORE
D.K. DIST 575001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ELIZABETH RODRIGUES, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. N. SUDHAKARA SHETTY
S/O SRI. THYAMPANNA SHETTY
AGED 62 YEARS.
2. SMT. HEMALATHA S. SHETTY
W/O N. SUDHAKARA SHETTY
AGED 52 YEARS.
3. SRI. PAWAN S. SHETTY
S/O N. SUDHAKAR SHETTY
AGED 32 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15627
R.P. No.542/2022
HC-KAR
4. SRI. PRAJAN S. SHETTY
S/O SUDHAKARA SHETTY
AGED 25 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4
ARE R/AT "SHETTY FARMS"
MUDUPUNADKA
BADAGANNUR VILLAGE
PUTTUR TQ, D.K. DIST 574201.
5. SRI. DAVID NIXON D'SOUZA
S/O DENNIS D'SOUZA
AGED 47 YEARS.
6. SRI. JOSEPH D'SOUZA
S/O DENNIS D'SOUZA
AGED 45 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.5 & 6
ARE R/AT NEAR KEMMINJE TEMPLE
KEMMINJE VILLAGE
DARBE POST, PUTTUR TQ
D K DIST 574202.
7. SMT. IDA D'SOUZA
W/O LOY CLAUDIUS D'SOUZA
AGED 41 YEARS
R/AT. D'SOUZA COMPOUND
KULASHEKARA, KALIKAMBA POST
MANGALORE, D K 575007.
8. SRI. K. SUNIL KUMAR SHETTY
S/O K. SANJEEVA SHETTY
AGED 54 YEARS
R/AT. KSK COMPOUND
NEHRU NAGAR POST
PUTTUR TQ, D K DIST 574204.
9. SRI. RAKESH S. KULAL
S/O SHESHAPPA KULAL
AGED 32 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15627
R.P. No.542/2022
HC-KAR
R/AT. NEKKARE HOUSE
SHANTHIGODU VILLAGE & POST
PUTTUR TQ, D K DIST 574208.
10. THE MCC BANK LTD
PUTTUR BRANCH
REP BY ITS MANAGER
PUTUR TQ, D K DIST 574201.
11. THE MCC BANK LTD
HEAD OFFICE
MANGALORE
REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
ST. ALOYSIUS COLLEGE ROAD
HAMAPANAKATTA
MANGALORE, D K DIST 575003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. M. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA, ADV., FOR R5 TO R7
R8 & R9 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:03.12.2024
NOTICE TO R10 & R11 ARE D/W)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED 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.
13370/2018 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.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:15627
R.P. No.542/2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This review petition is filed seeking to review the
order dated 09.07.2021 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.13370/2018 (GM-CPC).
2. Smt.Elizabeth Rodrigues, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed suit
in O.S.No.47/2017 to enforce the agreement of sale dated
11.03.2016. In the said suit, petitioners-plaintiffs filed
I.A.No.2 seeking prayer against the defendant Nos.4 and
5 to deposit the rent amount before the Court, which came
to be allowed by the trial Court and the same was
challenged by the subsequent purchaser of the property in
the present writ petition, which was allowed. It is
submitted that the purchase of the property by the writ
petitioners was during the pendency of the suit and the
plaintiffs have paid advance amount of Rs.1,72,55,738/-
to the defendant Nos.1 to 3, who retained the said amount
unlawfully and also alienated the property in favour of the
NC: 2026:KHC:15627
HC-KAR
defendant Nos.8 to 11. It is also submitted that the order
of this Court is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) No.16687/2021 and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has permitted the petitioners to seek
review of the order, hence, she seeks to review of the
order.
3. Per contra, Sri.Ravishankar Shastry G., learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 (writ petitioners),
submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have paid
Rs.4,26,00,000/- and purchased the property from
defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is submitted that filing of I.A.No.2
by the petitioners-plaintiffs to deposit the rent amount was
prior to the impleadment and purchase of the property by
the respondent Nos.1 to 4 i.e., defendant Nos.8 to 11. It is
further submitted that during the pendency of these
proceedings, the tenants i.e., defendant Nos.4 and 5
vacated the premises and thereafter defendant Nos.8 to
11, who are the lawful purchasers, are in possession and
running the hotel by obtaining the appropriate license from
NC: 2026:KHC:15627
HC-KAR
the authority. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the review
petition.
4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides
and perused the material available on record and the order
under review.
5. This Court, considered the rival submissions
and recorded reasons at para Nos.13 and 14, which are
extracted as under:
"13. Analysis of facts shows that defendants No. 8
to 11 are the present owners of the property having
purchased the same under a registered sale deed
for a consideration of `4,26,00,000. The Trial Court
has injuncted them from alienating or encumbering
the property. Plaintiffs have paid `1,26,00,000/- and
seeking specific performance of the agreement. The
suit schedule property is much more valuable than
the amount paid by the plaintiffs. Their interest is
protected by the order of injunction passed against
defendants No. 8 to 11. It is stated in the counter
affidavit filed by defendant No.1 to the application
that defendants have suffered huge losses due to
default on the part of the plaintiffs and a sum of
`98,67,052/- is liable to be adjusted towards loss.
Therefore, there are contentious issues which can
be decided only after Trial.
14. It is settled that the owner of the property is
entitled to enjoy the benefits accruing from the
property. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the
learned Trial Judge that the plaintiffs have already
paid `1,26,00,000/- and therefore, it is just and
NC: 2026:KHC:15627
HC-KAR
appropriate to direct deposit of money in the Court,
is not sustainable."
6. The aforesaid order makes it clear that this
Court has taken note of the fact that the respondent Nos.1
to 4/writ petitioners are the present owners of the
property having purchased the same under the registered
sale deed for consideration of Rs.4,26,00,000/- and has
set aside the order of the trial Court dated 07.02.2018,
wherein the direction was to the defendant Nos.4 and 5 to
deposit the rent amount. It is also to be noticed that, now
the tenants are not in occupation of the premises and no
rents have been paid either to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 or
to the subsequent purchasers. Hence, the said application
rendered infructuous. It is also to be noticed that, the
petitioners are unable to point out any error in the order
under review. Hence, the review petition is rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
