- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3946 RP No. 48 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO.48 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. SATHYA SHANTHA KUMAR S/O LATE M SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.380, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR RING ROAD, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560071. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOURABH R K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. JUNJAPPA D., S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.22, V.R.N. CITY 15TH CROSS KANNURHALLI MAIN ROAD, SANGOLLIRAYANNANAGAR, HOSKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 114. 2. SRI SYED DAULATH S/O SYED MEER AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3946 RP No. 48 of 2025 KARNATAKA LAYOUT NEAR AQSA MASJID HOSKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 114. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BEERASANDRA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DEVANAHALLI TALUK -572 114. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -561 203. 6. TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 114. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC AND ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITTUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION; REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2025 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 847/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND RESPONDENT NO. 2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3946 RP No. 48 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This review petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is not a party to the original proceedings. The petitioner asserts that he has already instituted a civil suit for declaration and injunction in O.S. No. 77/2025, wherein he has challenged the validity of the sale deed executed in favor of respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner contends that the transaction in question adversely affects his rights over the subject property, and therefore, he seeks reconsideration of the order under review. 2. Upon a thorough examination of the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant interference through the present proceedings. The petitioner’s claim to the property in dispute is intrinsically linked to the outcome of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3946 RP No. 48 of 2025 the suit pending in O.S. No. 77/2025. Accordingly, the petitioner is advised to pursue his remedies within the framework of the said suit. He is at liberty to seek appropriate reliefs, including any interim protection, from the competent court in accordance with the law. 3. On examination of the grounds urged, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC are not made out. 4. Review petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 4 Sl No.: 5