- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1224 R.P. No.243/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO.243/2024 BETWEEN: H.R. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O VT RANGE GOWDA HACCHADAMANE GRAMA HALASUMANE POST VASTHARE HOBLI CHIKMAGALURU TQ-577101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR D, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. H.P. KARTHIK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O H.R. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA. 2. SMT. SUMIKHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS W/O H.P. KARTHIK. BOTH ARE R/O HACCHADAMANE GRAMA HALUSMANE POST, VASTHARE HOBLI, CHIKMAGALURU TQ-577101. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKMAGALURU 577 101. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1224 R.P. No.243/2024 CHIKMAGALURU 577 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. , HCGP FOR R3 & R4 R1 & R2 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION BY REVIEWING THE FINAL ORDER DATED 11.01.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.19763/2022 (GM-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. GRANT COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER The present review petition is filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to review the order dated 11.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.19763/2022 (GM-RES) 2. Sri. Prashanth Kumar D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 11.01.2024, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not complied with the order under review, they failed to adhere to the undertaking given before this Court. He further submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed an affidavit of undertaking as per the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1224 R.P. No.243/2024 order under review. It is also submitted that the contesting respondents are not allowing the petitioner to reside in his own house and there is a life threat to him. In view of the same, he has filed OS.No.402/2021 against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Wherein, the trial Court has granted interim protection by directing Aldur police to give suitable police protection to the petitioner. It is also submitted that one of the daughters of the petitioner filed OS.No.25/2022 seeking partition of the property and the said suit came to be decreed on 16.02.2024 and in the said proceedings, the present property is not the subject matter of the said suit and the present property is self acquired property of the petitioner and the respondents son and daughter-in-law are not permitting him to reside in the said premises. 3. It is also submitted that this Court can exercise power under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC if sufficient reasons are pointed out to seek the recall/review of the order in support of the contention and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1224 R.P. No.243/2024 Others1. He seeks to review the order dated 11.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.19763/2022. 4. Though the notice on IA as well as on the main matter was served to respondent Nos.1 and 2, they remained absent. 5. Learned HCGP appearing for the official respondents supports the order under review and seeks to dismiss the petition. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP, meticulously perused the material available on record. 7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed W.P.No.19763/2022 assailing the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by respondent No.4 - Assistant Commissioner, Chikamagaluru which has been affirmed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 01.09.2022. In the said proceedings, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have undertook that they would make separate entrance to a room where the present petitioner could reside and they 1 (2005) 4 SCC 741 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1224 R.P. No.243/2024 also undertook that they would keep the dog in the compound and sought for modification of the impugned orders accordingly. Based on the aforesaid undertaking by respondent Nos.1 and 2, writ petition was disposed of by modifying the orders dated 18.04.2022 passed by respondent No.4 and 01.09.2022 passed by respondent No.3 to the extent that petitioner shall make a separate entrance to the room where the petitioner would reside and the said undertaking shall be complied within a period of two weeks and to that effect respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to file an affidavit of undertaking with this Court within a period of four weeks from that day. 8. The material available on record indicates that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed the affidavit of undertaking nor adhered to the undertaking given before this Court. I do not find any error appearing on the face of record to review the order as such but, however, there is sufficient reason to review the order as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another referred supra. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment for reference are extracted herein below: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1224 R.P. No.243/2024 "89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. 90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefore. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words "sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit". 9. Admittedly, the writ petition was disposed of on the solemn undertaking given by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and not on merits of the case. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra and also taking note of the fact that the respondents son and daughter- in-law have not adhered to the solemn undertaking given before - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1224 R.P. No.243/2024 this Court. Hence for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER i) Review petition is allowed. W.P.No.19763/2022 is restored to file. ii) Registry shall place the W.P.No.19763/2022 before the bench having roster. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40