- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22245 RP No. 116 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA REVIEW PETITION NO. 116 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. BHAGYA, WIFE OF BETTAIAH, D/O LATE GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT AT BAASATHHALLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, BANNAGADI POST, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VEERAPPA, S/O LATE GUDDATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.716, I BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSURU - 570 022 EXPIRED ON 11.02.2022 2. SMT. MANGALAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SRI NARAYANA, S/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 4. SRI GOVINDA, S/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22245 RP No. 116 of 2024 D-4 IN O.S NO. 596/2007 5. MS ANITHA D/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D-5 IN O.S NO. 596/2007 RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENT OF KOTE HUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 008. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO A REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED IN WP NO. 21507 OF 2022 (GM- CPC) ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who is seeking review of the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.21507/2022. 2. The grounds urged in the memorandum of review petition, which is urged in the writ petition are one and the same, to contend that, an exparte order was passed by the Trial Court on 24.06.2013 in O.S.No.596/2007. When the said - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22245 RP No. 116 of 2024 order was challenged before this Court by preferring the writ petition, the same was considered on merits and the order dated 08.01.2024 was passed dismissing the writ petition on merits. 3. Now it is the contention of the petitioner that some more documents are available with him and therefore, the order dated 08.01.2024 is to be set aside and the writ petition is to be considered once again afresh which is out side the scope of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure. If the prayer for review is to be allowed, it amounts to rewriting the order which was passed on merits. 4. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the review petition, pending I.A.Nos.2/2024 to 4/2024 are also stand dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34