- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21780 RP NO.208 OF 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 208 OF 2023 IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1498 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. LALITHA S. CHETTY W/O K.R. SRINIVASAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 2. K.S. SHARATH S/O K.R. SRINIVASAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT: OPP. LAKSHMANA IYERS, NEW POST OFFICE ROAD CROSS, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101. 3. SMT. SAPNA D/O K.R. SRINIVASAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT: NO 41, SRIJI KRUPA, KONDIVITTA ROAD, BEHIND AKRUTHI CENTRE, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400 059. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21780 RP NO.208 OF 2023 AND: M. BACCHEGOWDA S/O PATEL MUNISWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT GODLAMUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 560 110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S.A., ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEEDURE, SEEKING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 02ND SEPTEMBER, 2021 PASSED IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1498 OF 2016 AND TO RECALL THE SAME AND ALLOW THE SAID REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR, BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this review petition, petitioners are seeking review of the judgment dated 02nd September, 2021 (Annexure-A) passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1498 of 2016. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21780 RP NO.208 OF 2023 2. Heard Sri. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Sudhindra S.A., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that there is a variance between the property mentioned in the Sale Agreement and the schedule mentioned in the judgment and decree passed in the suit, filed for specific performance of the contract. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Sale Agreement in question become incapable of performance due to change in the circumstances. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LAL vs. HORI LAL reported in (1977)2 SCC 221, he sought to review the judgment passed in the Regular Second Appeal No.1498 of 2016. 4. Per contra, Sri. Sudhindra S.A., learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the judgment dated 02nd September, 2021 (Annexure-A) passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.1498 of 2016. 5. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly with regard to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21780 RP NO.208 OF 2023 variance in the schedule mentioned in the Sale Agreement and the schedule mentioned in the judgment and decree, the contention of the petitioners is that, the Sale Agreement cannot be given into effect. However on careful examination of the schedule narrated in the Agreement of Sale dated 16th May, 1997 (Exhibit-P1) and the schedule to the suit are one and the same. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in this review petition as there is no error apparent on the face of the record to exercise jurisdiction under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the light of law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS vs. VINOD KUMAR RAWAT AND OTHERS reported in (2020) SCC OnLine SC 896. 6. It is also forthcoming from the review petition that the petitioners have already approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No.36382 of 2022. Therefore, having taken note of the order dated 20th January, 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21780 RP NO.208 OF 2023 reasons assigned by this Court in the judgment dated 02nd September, 2021 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1498 of 2016, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in this petition. Accordingly, Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24