B S Ramesha vs Latha B Singh on 11 March, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B S Ramesha vs Latha B Singh on 11 March, 2022

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                             -1-



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

            REVIEW PETITION No.250 OF 2022
BETWEEN:

B.S.RAMESHA
S/O B. SUBBAKRISHNA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.A1, NISHAN MANOR,
19, 2ND MAIN NHCS LAYOUT,
PRASHANTHA NAGAR,
BANGALORE -560 079
                                        ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.B.S.MANIAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. LATHA B. SINGH
   W/O N.BALAJI SINGH,
   AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
   R/AT VALLABHA, NO.157,
   2ND MAIN, J P NAGAR,
   7TH PHASE, M S RAMAIAH CITY,
   BANGALORE- 560 078.

2. PARAMESH
   S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
   AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
   R/A FF-1 SUMAN ENCLAVE NO.1,
   1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
   VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
   BANGALORE- 560 085.

3. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH
   S/O JAYAPAL,
   AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
   R/A FF-1 SUMAN ENCLAVE NO.1,
   1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
   VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
   BANGALORE- 560 085.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
                              -2-



      THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W
ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 25/02/2021 DISMISSING MFA
NO.722/2021, ARISING OUT OF I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.6629/2021 ON THE
FILE OF XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU AND ETC.

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

                           ORDER

This review petition is directed against the impugned order dated 25.02.2021 passed in MFA No.722/2021 by this Court whereby the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material on record, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat - Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, particularly when the impugned order arises out of the discretionary order dated 19.01.2021 passed on I.A.2 filed by the petitioner / plaintiff for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in O.S.No.6629/2020 by the trial Court, which was -3- confirmed by this Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant - plaintiff vide the impugned order assailed in the present review petition.

3. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE SV/SRL

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court