Karnataka High Court
Talakal Savitramma W/O Vamanna vs Smt Renukavva W/O Shivanagouda on 16 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12168
RP No. 100030 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
REVIEW PETITION NO. 100030 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. TALAKAL SAVITRAMMA
W/O VAMANNA
AGED 54 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. TALKAL BASAVARAJ
S/O VAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
3. TALAKAL PRAVEEN KUMAR
W/O VAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
4. TALAKAL PRASHANTH KUMAR
W/O VAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
Digitally R/AT. MAHAJANADAHALLI IN
signed by HADAGALI TALUK,
SUMA BELLARY DISTRICT-583101
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKAVVA
W/O SHIVANAGOUDA
AGED 68 YEARS
R/O. MAHAJANADAHALLI IN
HADAGALI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT-583101
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12168
RP No. 100030 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. SMT. LALITHAMMA
W/O SHADAKSHARA GOUDA
MAJOR
R/O. KANNIHALLI
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT-583101
3. BASAMMA
W/O JAMBAGOUDA
MAJOR
R/O. KANNAHALLI VILLAGE
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT-583101
4. SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O HANUMAREDDY
MAJOR
R/O. KAKBAL HOSPET TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT-583101
5. SRI. M. VEERESH
S/O DODDABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O. S. GANGALAPUR
SANDUR TALUK-583110
BELLARY DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1
TO 4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NO.5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.F.A NO.1893/2007 TO ALLOW
THE RFA OF THE PETITIONER. AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12168
RP No. 100030 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have sought for review of the judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed in R.F.A No.1893/2007.
2. The grounds urged in support of the petition give an impression that the petitioners are trying to challenge the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by this Court. The appropriate course for the petitioners was to file an appeal against the judgment and not to seek review. After perusing the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the judgment passed by this Court.
3. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
4. In view of dismissal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2023 for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is rejected.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1