- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2023 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. R CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH S/O LATE K RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. K R PARASHIVAMURTHY S/O LATE K RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. K R SIDDALINGAIAH S/O LATE K RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4. R VEERABHADRAIAH S/O LATE K RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 5. VIRUPAKSHAIAH K R S/O LATE K RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KAMBALU VILLAGE AND POST SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562111 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.V.GANGADHARAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TLAUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562110 3. SREE VEERABHADRASWAMY DEITY KAMBALU VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK REP BY TAHSILDAR AND MUZARAI OFFICER NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562111 SIDDALINGAIAH S/O SIDDABASAVAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR K S SHANTHAPPA S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR 4. S MARULARADHYA S/O LATE K S SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT KAMBALU VILLAGE AND POST SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562111 MARIDODDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR CHIKKANNA S/O LATE MARIDODDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS 5. SMT NANJAMMA W/O LATECHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 6. SMT ROOPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 W/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 7. SMT RAMYASHREE D/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R-5 TO R-7 ARE R/O SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562111 SIDDALINGAIAH S/O LATE VEERAPPA SHASTRI SINCE DEAD BY LR 8. SMT UMADEVI W/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH DEVARU D/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O KAMBALU VILLAGE AND POST SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562111 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI.S., HCGP FOR R-1 T R-3; SRI. M.V.VEDAMURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-7; SRI. S.C.VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ON I.A.NO.16 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.26/2016, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-N AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. An appeal was preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No.44 of 2002 challenging the order of conferment of occupancy rights in favour of Veerabhadra Devaru, K.G.Veerabhadraiah, Rudregowda, Maridoddaiah and Siddalingaiah in the year 2002. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent No.4—K.Rudregowda passed away and his death was also reported to the Tribunal. Steps were not taken to bring the legal representatives of deceased Rudregowda on record. 3. The Tribunal, after considering the appeal on merits, proceeded to allow the appeal in respect of all other respondents therein except Rudregowda. The Tribunal observed that since no steps had been taken against deceased Rudregowda, the appeal had stood abated. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 4. After the order was passed by the Tribunal, a review petition was filed by Siddalingaiah through his legal representatives seeking for a review of the order passed by the Tribunal. In this review petition, though Rudregowda was no more, nevertheless, he had been arrayed as respondent No.4. 5. During the pendency of this review petition, an application was filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Rudregowda on record. Applications were also filed to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay in filing the said applications. 6. The Tribunal allowed the applications after considering the objections raised by the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4. The objections of the legal representatives of respondent No.4 was essentially that they had been served with only a copy of the application under which the legal representatives were sought to be brought on record - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 and the applications to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay were not filed and were not furnished to them. 7. As already stated above, the Tribunal allowed the applications to bring the legal representatives of Rudregowda on record and this order was passed on 17.07.2018. 8. Two thereafter, on 29.10.2020, an application was filed seeking recalling of the order dated 17.07.2018, by which the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Rudregowda was allowed. 9. The Tribunal, on consideration of the application and the objections, has by the impugned order, dismissed the application and as a consequence, affirmed its earlier order of bringing the legal representatives of the deceased Rudregowda on record. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 10. It is this order which is challenged before this Court by way of this writ petition. 11. Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the petitioners (the legal representatives of the deceased Rudregowda), contended that the application to bring the legal representatives of Rudregowda on record in the review petition was not maintainable, simply because Rudregowda had died even in the pendency of the appeal itself and therefore, the review petition filed by respondent No.4 was impermissible and in such an impermissible review, an application filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Rudregowda on record was illegal. 12. He also sought to put forward the contention that the review petition had been filed by Siddalingaiah who was no more and therefore, the review petition itself was not maintainable. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 13. Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa also submitted that the appropriate course of action for the review petitioners was to have made an application to implead the legal representatives the deceased Rudregowda by invoking Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) and they could not have filed application under Order XXII of the CPC and could not have been brought on record as the legal representatives. 14. In my view, this alternative argument of Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa is itself sufficient to disentitle the grant of the application filed for recalling the order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Tribunal. 15. It is to be noticed here that the ultimate purpose of making an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased litigant on record is to ensure that the estate of the deceased is represented and the entire process of conducting the litigation is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 not set at naught by virtue of the death of a particular litigant. 16. Whether the legal representatives of a particular litigant are brought on record either under Order XXII or under Order I of the CPC, the fact remains that the purpose of bringing the legal representatives on record is to ensure that the estate of the deceased is represented and the proceedings do not abate due to technicality. 17. In that view of the matter, merely because the review petition was filed, even though Rudregowda was dead, pendency of the appeal, would by itself be of no real consequence. 18. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, the applications filed to bring the legal representatives being allowed by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with, even if it is assumed for a minute that the invocation of Order XXII of the CPC was improper. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 19. In my view, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners by the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the legal representatives of the deceased Rudregowda to come on record. 20. It is also to be noticed here that the order bringing the legal representatives of deceased Rudregowda on record was not challenged by the petitioners by approaching this Court and they chose to make an application for recalling the order dated 17.07.2018, passed by the Tribunal and that too, after a period of two years. 21. In my view, this approach of the petitioners in seeking recalling of an order without challenging the order by filing a writ petition was itself improper. 22. Be that as it may, since no prejudice is caused by the legal representatives of the deceased Rudregowda being brought on record in the review petition, there - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12590 WP No. 2622 of 2023 is no justification to entertain this writ petition. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. 23. Nothing said in this order shall be construed as rendering opinion on the merits of the maintainability of the review petition. 24. Having regard to the fact that the review petition is of the year 2016, the Tribunal shall consider the review and dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. Since the parties are represented by counsels before this Court, they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.04.2025 without expecting any further notice from the Tribunal. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57