- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23374 RP No. 99 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 99 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SADHASHIVA BHAT, SON OF LATE. MADHAVA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 3/109A, AMBHAGILU, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, BYNDUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 232. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SURESH BHAT, SON OF LATE MADHAVA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT 3-105A, AMBHAGILU, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 232. 2. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, UPPUNDA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 232. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MESCOM, BYNDOOR CITY, BYNDOOR TALUK, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23374 RP No. 99 of 2025 UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 of CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2025 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.36429/2024 (LB-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER It is forthcoming from the records that the application filed by the review petitioner seeking impleadment in the writ proceedings was rejected by this Court. Thereafter, the main matter was heard and adjudicated on merits, culminating in a final order. In such circumstances, once the impleading application has been rejected and the petitioner has not been made a party to the proceedings, he cannot seek to invoke the review jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23374 RP No. 99 of 2025 It is well settled that the remedy of review is available only to a party to the proceeding who is aggrieved by the final order. Since the review petitioner was neither permitted to come on record nor was he heard on merits, he cannot now be allowed to invoke the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to seek review of the final order. The proper and efficacious remedy, if any, available to the review petitioner is to question the final order in an appeal before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the review petition is not maintainable in the light of the earlier rejection of the impleading application. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the review petitioner is at liberty to avail any remedy as may be permissible under law. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT: BHK