- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17561 RP No. 175 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA REVIEW PETITION NO. 175 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SRIDEVI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O LATE C.M. NARAYANA SWAMY CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE KEMPANGANAHALLI POST NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN - 562 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. DAYANANDA .K.G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K.R. KESHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O MR. K RAMA REDDY R/AT NO.24, 1ST A CROSS 5TH MAIN, DOMLUR II STAGE BANGALORE 560 071. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE – 561 293. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17561 RP No. 175 of 2025 4. THE TAHSILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 114. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MS BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. 6. SRI. ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS J CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN - 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R2 TO R5) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP NO.26513/2023, REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2025 IN WP NO.26513/2023(KLR-RES) DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO ADJUDICATE THEIR RIGHTS IN THE PENDING SUIT OS NO.1945/2022 AND FURTHER MAKING AN OBSERVATION THAT ANY OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2025 SHALL NOT COME IN THE WAY OF THE COMPETENT CIVIL COURT TO DECIDE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES INDEPENDENTLY BY MODIFYING PARA NO.14 OF THE ORDER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17561 RP No. 175 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This review petition is filed stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, viz., an error that has crept in at paragraph 12 of the order dated 28.03.2025 passed in W.P. No.26513 of 2023. 2. This Court had noticed that the petitioner had in fact instituted a suit in O.S. No.1945 of 2022 but in paragraph 14 of the order, this Court has observed that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to file an appropriate suit seeking declaration that her father-in-law had purchased 04 acres and not 02 acres and if such a decree was obtained, the revenue entries would be accordingly mutated. 3. It is pointed out that, since the suit had already been filed in O.S. No.1945 of 2022, the observation in paragraph 14 of the order that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to file a suit would be erroneous. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17561 RP No. 175 of 2025 4. Having regard to the fact that in paragraph 12, it is already observed that a suit in O.S. No.1945 of 2022 has been instituted, the observation in paragraph 14 that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to file an appropriate suit shall stand deleted. 5. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. 6. It is needless to state that as already observed in the order dated 28.03.2025, the revenue entries would abide by the result of the suit and any observations made by the revenue authorities would obviously not bind the Civil Court. 7. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 115