Sri S R Amir Jan vs The Commissioner Bbmp on 15 July, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri S R Amir Jan vs The Commissioner Bbmp on 15 July, 2013

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                         1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2013

                     BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

                 R.P.NO.126/2013

BETWEEN

SRI S.R.AMIR JAN
S/O LATE RAZAK SAB, 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.121, 40FT. MAIN ROAD
MANJUNATHANAGAR
BANGALORE-10                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE COMMISSIONER
      B.B.M.P.
      N.R.SQUARE
      BANGALORE-01

2.    THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      OFFICE OF THE BBMP
      K.G.NAGAR
      J.C.ROAD
      BANGALORE-02

3.    THE HEALTH OFFICER
      OFFICE OF THE BBMP
      CHICKPET DIVISION
      J.C.ROAD
      BANGALORE-02

4.    SHAHEED UR REHMAN
      30 YEARS
      S/O GHOUSE PASHA
                            2




5.   G.SHAKEEB ARAFATH
     23 YEARS, S/O GHOUSE PASHA

6.   G.AYESHA TABASSUM
     25 YEARS
     D/O GHOUSE PASHA

ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.38/1, 8TH MAIN
1ST STAGE, B.T.M.LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 029                  ...RESPONDENTS


   THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED U/O 47 RULE 1
AND 2 OF CPC PRAYING FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER
DATED 22.8.2012 PASSED IN W.P.NO.814/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.

    THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON                FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                   THE
FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

I.A.No.1/2013 is filed by the review petitioner to condone the delay of 179 days in filing the review petition stating that W.P.No.814/2011 when disposed of on 22.08.2012, he obtained a copy of the order on 29.08.2012 and filed W.A.No.5793/2012 on 17.09.2012 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.02.2013 and after obtaining a certified copy of the order passed in writ appeal on 02.03.2013, thereafterwards he suffered two heart attacks and was under treatment at Jayadeva 3 Hospital and thereafter he suffered 'slipped disk' and was admitted to Mallige Hospital and hence the delay. The review petitioner is none other than the writ petitioner. Having obtained an order dated 22.08.2012 (Annexure-A) disposing of the petition on the premise that appeal No.256/2011 is pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal filed by respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 against an order passed by the B.B.M.P. under sections 321 to 323 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, the writ appeal preferred against the said order was withdrawn at the instance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant therein with liberty to file a review petition. The delay of 179 days in filing the review petition is sought to be explained stating that the petitioner was hospitalised. The Annexures to the application are some reports of biochemistry, MRI report etc. Nowhere it says that the petitioner was in-patient in the hospital. Petitioner having sworn to a false statement that he was hospitalised without furnishing hospital records deserves to be hauled up for perjury. 4 The explanation offered is far from satisfactory and in fact is incorrect. The application is rejected.

2. Having had glimpse at the order, I find no grounds made out for interference by way of review under order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Petition as a consequence is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE Yn.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court