TTE mere: C('){ER'I' 01:" KARNATAKA AT BAN
Yeshwanthapura:,_Banglacm:.. 56.9 8.23., ' "
SréS§1ivara:1i_éia1i§je¢3Vy:s"«& '
Ka1iveba.namé'I§i Vilisggé _ ' V '
YeshWa;1t%1ap'u:_r}:i0b1i" ' _ A_
Bangalmfé
Barggaiore' _ Petitioners
{By Sri K sfwdjaar Assq¢i$':gs['A:§§;;. I
Ami:
%%%s;m smug, s1"§,:rs;--wig 9: B Bheemeswar
V' T333? ?5 yrs, W350 Dr B Ranganaihan
" . . 32-; M is*iI%';::;::aiesh Murthy, 53 ym, sxo late Srinivasaiah
\}'a1a:;'rnajh2£,' 34 3313, S53 M 'V Vankaieshmurtixy
n 'T '.1.' air:é§he3'a, 32 yrs, S53: M V Venkateshmurfliy
are rib H 51: 17* Cross, Maileshwaram
1 Bangalore 569 £355
Rf3S[3¢0nd€}'1iS
2%"
Review Petition 5 / 2069 % 1;; Kiss "1 71 {gags I
in.)
This Review Pestitien is filed uniier A1147, Rule: 1, CFC praying fie
review the erder dated 1?.11.2{}O8 in REA 1712;'2{){}S.
This Review Petitirm ccming on for Orders this day, the Co_3:r£V_:r;1;ii§r_
fits fuliowing:
ORDER
Review Petition is flied seeking reviavéi ._i§1id_g,rrient:_’Vg3a_sVs;§V<i'En
RFA 3712; was {m1'?.'11.20{18.
Hears} the counsel fer the respectivéivgiaiiies.
Referring ta page 112 counsel for the
reviaw petitioners subsniftszgi that:.tiie»:isii;vé;i¢ relieé ilptm to
aliow the suit fif the4_pi§iii:iifi’$’__;:21gi:’ihai cisriipieied. Stating ather
greunds Rearmed this cirder passed in the
RFA.
Counsei fllvsv I’€iS;’:¥_()fi§ia’,v%;:1i!Ei.’~’i§1’l the Review Petition submitted that
thexe iS_”I’I§i:’§ :.§r__ir£;:{as siiisii .:;._Qn=m1it£ed and the case cannot be reviewed.
V}?;§fm;§ing.V£e –;:§a’g:e'<}_iItE}, is submitted that Sil1'V€.f}?' is catnpleted. Hawever,
when' iiA13.'£.'i":t:}1'i%:ii%'z's'i?i.i!ik3I1V*£' Tiiiifix boundary siimeg, the miher side raised a quarrel.
V " ;9as_ ctiiild he seen in ?age 112 of the Eiaper Bfifik the survey is
.§§;_m';»ieied.i' But, acocarding to {ha counsel far the review petitienersg survey
W
7 "'£hi:z Ceufiihy' the _resg:g{i§:den£s' ctmnsel.
has net keen conciudeé. However, the fact remains as could be seen in pagzz
113 itself, boundary had been fixed after survey, Defendants had re1n”0$§£:;f_i’~».vv
the baundary stones fixed earlier and to re~fix the boundary Sf{)1’l}P;’=~=.§:..’L’i?’I”l”‘§’h*:3’! the Vfiazgtiér has dgcidcii
on meriis after taking inn) consideratien the xiiaégfiaifixridericgéii aiiaiiéhle an
record, {here is 1:0 questian af this; re:-;3p§nihgf.VL’1§’2natfer to adjudicate
the sarne. H v_ u — ~.
Even ihe rcspondenis’ .gc>un.2:e;i suir.:1giitt_ed,.”~3$ per {ha ciaim and their
enfitiemazit only t§1v3y__3;i-23%” the: jgrgiyfir arid §§?}’:atevi-“:’i*V title is avaiiable ts
them, they are ciaizxzingxafi i§+:§_!;eyQ;’idV_:£iz§1f; A
Qréeir has passed £)Ii’Ij§f*’ iiiair entitlement and as per the tifie
deeds and reggtirds, Ailégizxg infe2*f:éi’ence by {ht} review petiiioners, there was
3199 injii£:$tie}{‘issi2e{i against them at the aariiesi; point cf time. That is
shmvi1i—iciibe §b3;Vfi1gi.:=&iaI court which is iater brought $0 the noficze ef
W,
In the circumstancas, 1 (it) not find any greund :0 review :}:¢VT0;}dar
passaeci in the R1338. Z\:’I.£:’_¢,”»,r_3:t»*:’r:tiaL*;x’£V for rrzmpening the
matter as submitieqi “§h§:fI.?:;’1V’g<$é1nSg:}__ aflfepcilants in tha RFA.
Furiher, the mvieww%p¢;$'iiiiz;#néi*$_héve raised 3}} cbnteniéuns whisk Ware
I19? raised ;e'a1*1i§r, fof ihgfirst tiine seeking have which is net tenable. In
– tI1iL§ ‘cQI;£i¥3$tioii§£ riiajg refer to the decisians 0f the Apex Claurt in the case cf
>:,?}£zg;g;:'”g”. gmhgz Ngzyyar Xlwiil & cars – (am; 9 SC(‘,’ 252 heid
V ” v 1′.%’:a£ it iS §–,1:I};V§’§£i’I’I}T!i_5§§’:’1″‘!)”1″tE’V”aI€:).1’3iS£3 a gmznd in the review getitéen which ca:-uid be taken
~ / _ _ V_ ‘$7933 mi !;ak§n3_bwers@
AW”
Further, in the decision in Liiy Thomas & Ors $13 Uksian of
(.2909; 6 sec 224% the apex mm has heid ma: review carmot be gr-ihe £},f;::;~.l’L}:;£fa;j+; ~
appeal £1′: disguise. The power car” review cannet be egercised z::éé1{ei3′- I£:<§'vs;u§:i3t1'£'uf;e °
paint af view. Reviaw may be called for where iaew and I iIfip:}f:a§1t'—mfiiiétg .'
discovered.
Acwrdingiy, review petitégn is éismigéézi. “{}_1ere is riaé’£i1f£h::r stay.
L % Judge