- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7910 RP No. 514 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT REVIEW PETITION NO. 514 OF 2022 BETWEEN: M/S RUDRAMUNI CONSULTANTS, BY SRI RUDRAMUNI, S/O LATE M V MATHAD, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, NO.471-1, 15TH A CROSS, IDEAL HOMES CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LAYOUT, KENCHENAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANMUKHA G C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M S BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KARNATALA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD BUILDING, RASILDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR – 571 313. Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7910 RP No. 514 of 2022 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH ENGINEERING DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR – 571 313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT.,AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO A) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 25/03/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO. 52776/2013 (LB-RES) AND PASS SUITABLE ORDER AND B) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT ORAL ORDER The writ petition involved a claim for certain sum of money. In terms of arbitral award, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court had disposed off another similar W.P.No.33544/2010 on 23.07.2012. That award became the basis for disposal of this petition as well, reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke provisions of Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A concession was shown by observing that the period spent in prosecuting the petitions shall be liable to be discounted - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7910 RP No. 514 of 2022 while computing the period of limitation for laying a challenge to the subject awards. There is no error in the order now put in review as rightly submitted by learned AGA, who on request appeared for respondent nos. 1 & 2. In the above circumstances, Review Petition is misconceived and accordingly disposed off. However, the time spent during the pendency of review petition shall also be discounted while invoking the remedy u/s.34 of the 1996 Act. Costs made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6