Karnataka High Court
RP/253/2026 of DIPAK THAKUR Vs SUNITA THAKUR on 10 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:35209 RP No. 253 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REVIEW PETITION NO.253 OF 2026 BETWEEN: DIPAK THAKUR AGED 57 YEARS, S/O DR. DS THAKUR 152, 2ND FLOOR, DEFENCE ENCLAVE,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
REVIEW PETITION NO.253 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
DIPAK THAKUR
AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O DR. DS THAKUR
152, 2ND FLOOR,
DEFENCE ENCLAVE,
GEDLAHALLI,
HENNUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 077.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.DIPAK THAKUR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
SUNITA THAKUR
AGED 57 YEARS
DAULAT RAM KHACHI
152, 1ST FLOOR,
DEFENCE ENCLAVE,
GEDLAHALLI, HENNUR ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 077.
…RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW/RECONSIDER THE
RESERVED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 APRIL 2026 BY THIS
HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.37271/2025.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed
by G
SHREERAKSHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
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 under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC by the petitioner (party-in-person) seeking correction of the typographical errors crept in the order passed in W.P.No.37271/2025, which is dismissed on 17.04.2026.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (party-in-person) had filed W.P.No.37271/2025 before this Court. After hearing both the parties, the said writ petition was dismissed on 17.04.2026. In the said order, few typographical errors were crept in as follows:-
(i) At paragraph No.4 in page No.3 “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that…”;
(ii) At paragraph No.5 in page No.4 “Per contra respondent has objection” and;
(iii) At paragraph No.6 in page No.5 “Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties”.
HC-KAR
3. Accepting the submissions made by the petitioner (party-in-person), typographical errors are corrected as follows:-
(i) At paragraph No.4 in page No.3 “Learned counsel for the petitioner…”, is corrected as “Petitioner (party-in- person)...”,
(ii) At paragraph No.5 in page No.4 “Per contra respondent has objection”, is corrected as “Per contra, respondent has objected” and;
(iii) At paragraph No.6 in page No.5 “Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties” is corrected as “Heard petitioner (party-in-person) and learned counsel for the respondent”.
4. The aforesaid corrections shall be carried out in the order passed in W.P.No.37271/2025 dated 17.04.2026.
HC-KAR
5. Registry is directed to issue fresh certified copy of the order passed in W.P.No.37271/2025 dated 17.04.2026 at free of cost to the parties. Ordered accordingly.
SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5