Karnataka High Court
RP/325/2026 of SMT B N RAJAMMA Vs SMT K S JAYAVANI on 23 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:31333 RP No. 325 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO.325 OF 2026 IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1631/2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. B N RAJAMMA W/O B NAGARAJ D/O LATE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO.325 OF 2026
IN
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1631/2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. B N RAJAMMA
W/O B NAGARAJ
D/O LATE THAMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.27, “MANJULA”
SUDDAGUNTE PALYA
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 093
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HIMA KIRANA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. K S JAYAVANI
W/O K. RAJA RAO
D/O LATE SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.3242, 21ST 'B' MAIN ROAD
HAMPI CIRCLE
VIJAYANAGAR 2ND PHASE
'E' BLOCK
MYSURU - 570 017
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
SMT. K. RAMABAI @ S. LAKSHMI,
W/O LATE R. SATHYANARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT “SRI GURUPRASANNA”
ANJENAYA LAYOUT
VIDYARANYAPURA (THINDLU)
BENGALURU - 560 097
3.
SMT. K. THULASI
W/O LATE SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.1978, 8TH CROSS
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 078
4.
SMT. UMA DEVI @ UMA RAO K.
W/O SURYANARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.64, 13TH MAIN
RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK
SRINAGAR
5.
SMT. K. SAVITHRI
W/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.860, 1ST MAIN
2ND CROSS, KONANAKUNTE
BENGALURU-560 062
6.
SMT. K. LEELAVATHI
W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.5156, 4TH CROSS
RAILWAY STATION, GUBBI TOWN
TUMAKURU-572 216
7.
SMT. KAMALA R
W/O LATE K. RAGHAVENDRA
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.17, GAVIGANGADHARA DEVASTANA
GAVIPURAM CHATRA BLOCK
BENGALURU -560 019
8.
SRI. K. RAVI
S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.39, 1ST MAIN
24TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU -560 064
9.
SRI. K. PRASAD,
S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT AREHALLI, A.G.S. LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 061
10.
SRI. C. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.14, NARAYANAPPA FARM LAYOUT
GEDDALAHALLI
11.
SMT. LAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
12.
SRI. C.J. NARENDRA
S/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
HC-KAR
13.
SRI. C.J. THAMMEGOWDA
S/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
14.
SRI. P. RAJA NAIDU
S/O GANGULAU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT PERAIGHAGARIPALLI
E-KOTHUR POST
IRALA MANDAL
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-517 173
15.
SMT. P. JAYAMMA
W/O P. RAJA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT PERAIGHAGARIPALLI
E-KOTHUR POST, IRALA MANDAL
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH 517 173
16.
SRI. BABU PATHIPATI
S/O P. RAJA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT PERAIGHAGARIPALLI
E-KOTHUR POST, IRALA MANDAL
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 173
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2026 PASSED ON
I.A. NO.4/2025 IN RSA NO.1631/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY
RECALL THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2025 DISMISSING THE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN AND ETC.
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
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
The office has raised the objection that this review petition is not maintainable in view of the Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC since R.S.A.No.1631/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the appellant.
2. The scope of review is if there is any error apparent on the face of the record while passing the order, then only the Court can review its order. But in the case on hand, R.S.A.No.1631/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the appellant and not on merits. Such being the case, the question of consideration of this review petition does not arise. Hence, review petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, review petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SN