Karnataka High Court
The General Manager(Operations) vs Sri Eranna on 21 February, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ashok B Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK B HINCHIGERI
Review Petition No. 973 of 2013
In
Writ Appeal No. 1256 of 2006 (L-Ter)
BETWEEN:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
(OPERATIONS)
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009
2. THE TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER
DEPT. OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BIDAR
BOTH REP. BY DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER (STAFF)
O/O CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA TELECOM CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 008 ... PETITIONERS
[By Sri Y Hariprasad, Adv.]
AND:
1. SRI ERANNA
S/O JAWARAPPA
MAJOR
2
2. SRI YOUSUF MIYAM
S/O ISMAIL SAB
MAJOR
3. SRI JAGANATH
S/O BASAYYA
MAJOR
4. SHRI SHABULINGA
S/O BANDAPPA
MAJOR
5. SRI BASAYYA
S/O GUNDAYYA
MAJOR
6. SRI RAMESH
S/O GANAPATHI
MAJOR
7. SRI SHAMBULINGA
S/O MALAYYA
MAJOR
8. SRI TUKARAM
S/O ZHAARAPPA
MAJOR
9. SRI MALLIKARJUNA
S/O SANGAPPA
MAJOR
10. SRI NARENDRA
S/O NAMAPPA
MAJOR
ALL ARE GIVEN COMMON ADDRESS:
C/O SHRI SANGRAM
ADVOCATE.
HOUSING COLONY
BIDAR DISTRICT
POST - 585 401
KARNATAKA STATE ... RESPONDENTS
3
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 & 2 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 24.01.2007 PASSED IN W.A. NO. 1256/2006, ON THE FILE
OF THIS COURT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
MANJUNATH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed to view the judgment dated 24-1- 2007 passed in WA No 1256 of 2006, wherein the appeal filed by the review petitioner came to be dismissed as not maintainable, relying upon the judgment passed in GURUSHANTH PATTEDAR vs MAHABOOB SHAHI KALBURGA MILLS [ILR 2005 KAR 2503].
2. Now, the present petition is filed on the ground that a Special Bench of this Court in TAMMANNA D BATTAL vs RENUKA R REDDY [AIR 2009 KAR 119] has ruled that an intra-court appeal under Article 227 of Constitution of India is maintainable, other than a case arising out of an interlocutory order passed in a pending suit. 4
3. Subsequent to the judgment passed by the Division Bench in this matter, if the law is changed, the same cannot be a ground to entertain a review petition. In the circumstance, we do not see any reason to entertain the present review petition. Accordingly, this review petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *pjk