- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7707 RP No. 214 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO.214 OF 2024 IN M.F.A.NO.16/2024 (AA) BETWEEN: SRI S V RAJENDRA SINGH BABU AGED 72 YEARS, S/O LATE SHANKAR SINGH, R/AT C/O S PRATIMA DEVI NO.2961/21, 1ST,MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE 570009 …PETITIONER (BY SRI G R MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S NAVASHAKTHI ENTERPRISES REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI C NAGARAJ S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OFFICE AT CASINO BUILDING 2ND FLOOR 2ND CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560009 2. M/S SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA ARTS PVT LTD., Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7707 RP No. 214 of 2024 REP BY ITS PARTNERS SRI A MOHAN S/O NOT KNOWN, NO.31, GROUND FLOOR, 166TH MAIN 39TH CROSS, ‘T’ BLOCK, M R LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560041, AND ALSO AT NO.442 1ST FLOOR, DIAGONAL ROAD, V V PURAM, BENGALURU 560004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAGHUNATHA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DT.25.01.2025 ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS NOT NEEDED) THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2024 PASSED IN MFA NO.16/2024 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there was a plea in the MFA with - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7707 RP No. 214 of 2024 regard to deposit of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.48833/2016 dated 14.09.2022 and this Court while disposing of MFA, not touched upon the said point for consideration and hence, this Court has to review the order dated 22.02.2024 and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph 12 of the grounds urged in the MFA and contend that the said amount is lying in the Trial Court while dismissing the suit only on the ground of limitation and hence, this Court has to review the order passed by this Court. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent by filing objection statement would vehemently contend that respondent No.1 filed an Ex.P.No.2426/2012 against the petitioner herein for recovery of amount awarded in Arbitration Case No.24/2009 by the Arbitration Board of Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, Bengaluru. After service of notice in execution petition, the Court issued an order of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7707 RP No. 214 of 2024 attachment of movables. On 22.09.2015, respondent and Court bailiff entered into the house of petitioner, at that instance, to stop the execution of the order of attachment, petitioner’s son voluntarily issued post-dated Cheque towards the attachment amount of Rs.7,20,053/- and the said Cheque came to be dishonoured on its presentation and hence, case has been registered in C.C.No.813/2016 wherein conviction order was passed and appeal was preferred and the same is posted for judgment. The petitioner herein also preferred A.S.No.25004/2015 on 30.11.2015 and I.A. came to be dismissed by the Civil Court and then the petitioner herein preferred W.P.No.48833/2016, wherein stayed the proceedings of C.C.No.813/2016. On 29.05.2017, petitioner counsel submits that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- would be deposited before the jurisdictional Court. In the light of the said submission, this Court continued the order dated 18.10.2016 until further orders, subject to deposit of the said amount. The respondent herein filed I.A.No.1/2018 for release of the said deposited amount in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7707 RP No. 214 of 2024 W.P.No.48833/2016, the same was disposed on 14.09.2022, then A.S.No.25004/2016 dismissed on 29.11.2023 itself. Against that order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in MFA No.16/2024 and the same was dismissed during the admission on 22.02.2024. The petitioner presently preferred the said review petition with the contention that the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and respondent No.1 has taken entire award amount together with interest by way of Cheque from petitioner’s son. In view of the fact that the entire award has been satisfied by the petitioner by way of depositing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Trial Court and the Cheque issued by the petitioner’s son in favour of respondent No.1was not honoured and the petitioner herein is misrepresented the facts and the Court reprimanded the petitioner by imposing exemplary cost. When such being the case, the question of reviewing the order does not arise. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7707 RP No. 214 of 2024 4. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition as well as in the objections and also considering the factual aspects of the case, it discloses that this Court considered the appeal on merits and passed an order particularly with regard to the issue of limitation and made an observation that the appellants slept over more than 1½ decade when the claim was made before the Arbitration Board and did not participate and put forth his case and only he attended the arbitration proceedings twice and thereafter, he did not attend the arbitration proceedings. When such order is passed by this Court in coming to the conclusion that when the claim was made and same was dismissed on the ground of limitation and even though said ground was urged before this Court regarding deposit of amount is concerned and when the issue is with regard to limitation is concerned, this Court considered the same, particularly, the Trial Court also taken note of the very proviso of Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act wherein if any application for setting aside, may not be made after three months - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7707 RP No. 214 of 2024 have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court not committed any error in considering the issue of limitation is concerned. When issue of limitation is considered by this Court, the question of reviewing the order in view of the contention taken by the petitioner’s counsel does not arise. The counsel for respondent No.1 submits that even any such amount is deposited, he is going to file an application to withdraw the said amount and hence, he can withdraw the said amount. With this observation, the review petition is disposed of. Sd/ (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN