- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16573 RP No. 387 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 387 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUTTARANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D/O. RANGAPPA, R/AT KAVADIGARA HATTI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 2. JAYANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. P.V. SNEHALATHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O. P. S. JAYADEVAPPA @ JAYAMMA W/O. P. S. VEERESH, R/AT VARASIDHI KRUPA, DAVALAGIRI BHADAVENE, 1ST STAGE, BHEEMASAMUDRA ROAD, CHITRADURGA CITY-577 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B K MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: K. THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS, S/O. GANGASAMUDRADA KARIYAPPA, R/O. PRASANNA TALKIES ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 501. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02/07/2024 PASSED IN RSA.NO. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16573 RP No. 387 of 2024 421/2015 AND REHEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The above petition has been filed seeking for the following relief: “Wherefore, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to review the order 02.07.2024 passed in RSA No.421/2015, in the interest of justice.” 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners who were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not be represented when the matter was listed on 2.7.2024 on account of a search though having been made on the website of the High Court of Karnataka, the said case was not reflected on the said day as also on previous days. 3. It is pursuant to thereof that this Court has issued directions to the Registrar (Computers) to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16573 RP No. 387 of 2024 cause necessary changes for search to be effected with the initials as a prefix or as a suffix. 4. Since the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the RSA the initials of the counsel was mentioned as a suffix and a search having been carried out with the initials as a prefix, the same was not reflected, taking into consideration that the appearance of the petitioners was on account of a fact that was beyond the control of the counsel for the petitioners and that the petitioners’ counsel was not aware of the listing of the matter, the order dated 2.7.2024 would have to be recalled and the matter be restored for fresh consideration on merits. 5. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16573 RP No. 387 of 2024 ORDER i. The review petition is allowed; ii. The order dated 2.7.2024 passed in RSA No.421/2015 is recalled; iii. RSA No.421/2015 is restored to file. iv. The registry is directed to put up the said RSA for consideration before the roster Bench. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE ND List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1