Karnataka High Court
RP/251/2026 of KRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. SHANTHAMMA, Vs SHRI. HANUMANTHARAYA, on 19 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010311442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44948 RP No. 251 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 251 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. SHANTHAMMA,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO. 251 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
KRISHNAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
SMT. SHANTHAMMA,
WIDOW OF LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
2.
SHRI. B.K. SRINIVASA,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
GURUSWAMY NILAYA,
NO. 1025/13, 11TH MAIN,
HAMPINAGARA,
BENGALURU – 560 104.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SHRI. HANUMANTHARAYA,
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/A NO. 4, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
10TH CROSS, AGRAHARADASARAHALLI,
Digitally
signed by
THEJAS
KUMAR N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
SURESH S/O LATE MAHESHWARAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
3.
SHRI. HARISH,
S/O LATE SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
4.
SMT. USHA, D/O LATE SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5.
NAGARAJ,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
SMT. VANAJA, W/O LATE NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
6.
SHRI. KARTHIK,
S/O LATE NAGARAJ,.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
(REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER NO.5 ABOVE)
7.
SMT. KAVYA,
D/O LATE NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
8.
CHENNEKESHAVA,
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
SMT. SHANTHAMMA,
W/O LATE CHENNAKESHAVA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
9.
SHRI. C. NAGARATHNA,
D/O LATE CHENNAKESHAVA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
HC-KAR
10.
SMT. C. JAYANTHI,
D/O LATE CHANNAKESHAVA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
11.
RAVI,
S/O MAHESHWARAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
SMT. SAROJA,
W/O LATE RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
12.
SHRI. SUHAS,
S/O LATE RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
13.
SHRI. JITHEEN,
S/O LATE RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 13 ARE ALL
RESIDING AT NO. 23, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
10TH CROSS, AGRAHARADASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU – 560 079.
14.
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE T. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
15.
SHRI. YATHISH,
S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
16.
SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O LATE T. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
17.
SHRI. THIMMARAYAGOWDA @ MAHESH,
S/O LATE T. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS 14 TO 17 ARE ALL
RESIDING AT NO.4, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
10TH CROSS, AGRAHARADASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU – 560 079.
18.
SMT. SUMITHRA,
W/O DR. KEMPARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A NO. 20, 515, ABW LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, HAL 3RD STAGE,
NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 075.
19.
SMT. BHARATHI,
D/O LATE A. KRISHNAPPA,
W/O VASUDEVA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A NO. 1227/68, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
MRCR EXTENSION, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU – 560 079.
20.
THE ARBITRATOR,
SHRI. V.R. RAMASWAMY IYANGAR,
ADVOCATE, NO. 209, RAJA SNOW BLDG.,
S.C. ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU – 560 020.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. JAGANNATH ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7, R11 TO R17; R6 IS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER R5; R8, R9, R10, R18, R19, R20 ARE SERVED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE R/W SECTION 114 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2025
PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN MFA NO.2962/2016 (AA)
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This Review Petition is filed praying to review the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court in MFA No.2962/2016.
2. This Court, after hearing the arguments from both sides in MFA No.2962/2016, allowed the appeal on 24.07.2025 and set aside the order dated 20.02.2016 passed in A.C No. 76/2002 on the file of LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City and also the award dated 08.02.1999 passed by respondent No.2/Arbitrator.
3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners who were respondents No.1, 1A and 1B in MFA No.2962/2016 submitted that in MFA No.2962/2016, respondents No.1(A-D) were represented by one Advocate Sri.Ramesha K.R but the said Advocate Sri.Ramesha K.R died on 23.01.2025. Hence, no arguments could be addressed by Sri.Ramesha K.R on behalf of respondents No.1, 1A and 1B, who are the review petitioners herein. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to
HC-KAR
review the order dated 24.07.2025 and requested to rehear the MFA No.2962/2016 on its merits after hearing on behalf of respondents No.1, 1A and 1B.
4. The review petitioners have filed the death certificate of Sri.Ramesha K.R, Advocate which shows that he died on 23.01.2025. This Court passed the order in MFA No.2962/2016 on 24.07.2025. Therefore, no arguments were addressed on behalf of respondents No.1, 1A and 1B in the above stated appeal.
5. Though this Court has passed the order on merits, the fact remains that, no arguments could not be addressed on behalf of respondents No.1, 1A and 1B since their Advocate had passed away. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion to rehear the arguments of respondents No.1, 1A and 1B in MFA No.2962/2016 on merits. Accordingly, the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court is needed to be recalled. Hence, revision petition is liable to be allowed.
6. Though the learned counsel for the review petitioners addressed the arguments in brief and the learned
HC-KAR
counsel for the respondents justified the order passed on merits, but, the fact remains that, as the Advocate representing respondents No.1, 1A and 1B had passed away, there could not be representation from respondents No.1, 1A and 1B. The case was heard on merits on an earlier occasion in MFA No.2962/2016. But in the said appeal, the respondents herein who are the appellants in MFA No.2962/2016, therefore, further arguments in the Court is required to be heard not only from the appellants side once again but also from the respondents side. Hence, further arguments are required to be heard in the appeal. Therefore, the order dated 24.07.2025 is needed to be recalled, but for the reasons above stated. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion to hear the case on merits and for continuation of arguments on merits in MFA No.2962/2016.
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The review petition is allowed
ii) The order dated 24.07.2025 passed in MFA No.2962/2016 is hereby recalled and the matter is restored for hearing MFA No.2962/2016 on merits.
HC-KAR
iii) List MFA No.2962/2016 on 28.08.2026 for ‘further arguments’.
Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
UN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20