- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9597 RP No. 211 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 211 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MANIKCHAND S/O MISRIMAL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT SANKALP NO.10 LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027. 2. SMT SUSHEELA W/O SRI MANIKCHAND AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT SANKALP NO.10 LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027. 3. SRI KAMLESH KUMAR S/O SRI MANIKCHAND AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT SANKALP NO.10 LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 027. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9597 RP No. 211 of 2022 AND: 1. SRI BABULAL S/O MISRIMAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8 2ND CROSS LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027. 1a. SMT. NIRMALA KUMARI W/O LATE SRI BABULAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8,2ND CROSS LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 027. 1b. SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE SRI. BABULAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 8, 2ND CROSS LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 027. 1c. SMT. SEEMA B.S. W/O SRI. PADMA KUMAR D/O LATE SRI. BABULAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 1054/1056, 7TH MAIN 8TH CROSS, NEAR BATA SHOW ROOM SHRINIVASNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 050. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9597 RP No. 211 of 2022 2. SMT NIRMALA KUMARI W/O SRI BABULAL AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8 2ND CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027. 3. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O SRI BABULAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8 2ND CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.D. SURANA., ADVOCATE FOR R1(a), R1(c), R1(d), R2 AND R3) THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGEMENT DATED 23.09.2021 PASSED IN W.P.No.16731/2021 AND MAY BE FURTHER PLEASED TO PASS SUCH ORDER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9597 RP No. 211 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The writ petition in W.P. No.16731/2021 is disposed of by Order dated 23.09.2021 in the light of the memo filed by the first to third respondents. This Court has extracted the memo, which reads as under: "The undersigned counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 states that will and codicil EX D 306 & 307 are nor proved and they will not seek to prove them hereafter. The 3rd respondent states that the will and codicil EX D 306 & 307 are nor proved and he will not seek to prove them hereafter." 2. This Court's reasoning in the light of this memo is in paragraph-8 of the Order dated 23.09.2021 which reads as under: Further, Exs.D.266 and D.272A have also been marked as exhibits, which are admittedly neither original nor certified copies but a copy retained by the Chartered Accountant to establish the Will/Codicil, as also the release deed. If the respondents have given up their - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9597 RP No. 211 of 2022 reliance on the Will, the Codicil and Release Deed for the reasons stated above, it will also follow that they cannot place reliance on Ex.D.266 or Ex.D.272A as these are only brought on record as exhibits to establish the Will and the Codicil. As regards the efficacy of the release deed Ex.D.304, it must be additionally observed, to allay all anxieties and as permissible in law, these would be tenuous pieces of evidence because of the respondents’ present concession and because the petitioners are not parties to the document." 3. Sri Paras Jain, the learned counsel for the review petitioners, submits that this Court must review the Order dated 23.09.2021 because of the reference to the Release Deed [Exhibit-D304] asserting that the concession by the respondents is only as regards the Will and Codicil which are marked as Exhibits-D306 and D307. Sri P D Surana, the learned counsel for some of the respondents, submits that the suit is disposed of on 14.01.2022 and appeal as against such Judgment and decree is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9597 RP No. 211 of 2022 pending in RFA No.923/2022 and therefore the review petition is rendered infructuous. 4. The question is whether this Court must review the Order dated 23.09.2021, and this question is examined in the light of the rival submissions. This Court must observe that this Court's observation on the Release Deed [Exhibit-D304] is essentially in stating that the efficacy of the Release Deed against the respondents is tenuous because they are not parties to the document and the review petitioners' concession on Exhibits-D306 and D307. As such, the reference to the Release Deed in the earlier sentence even for this paragraph will have to be read accordingly. In the light of the afore, the order dated 23.09.2021 need not be reviewed, and the petition stands disposed of with the clarification as aforesaid. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-