- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1845 RP No. 308 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REVIEW PETITION NO. 308 OF 2016 BETWEEN: REMOCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT (REGD NO. B/ARBI/RIWHCS1640/69-70). NO. 364, 5TH MAIN, RPC (REMCO LAYOUT), VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALORE 40. REP BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. M. SARASWATHI D/O. LATE MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 143, PATTANAGERE, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1845 RP No. 308 of 2016 BENGALORE 560 098. 3. ROOPESH B., S/O. BASAVARAJU, AGED MAJOR, NO. A/6, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, ANUBHAVANAGAR, NAGARABHAVAI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 072 4. P.B. VIJAYASHANKAR S/O. LATE. BASAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT PATTANAGERE VILLAGE, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 098 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.B.S MANIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. MOHAN KUMAR K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (VC); SRI. AKASH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2015 PASSED IN MFA NO. 7776/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1845 RP No. 308 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this court that the order challenged before this court under the MFA where the petitioner sought for reviewing the order passed in MFA but the order sheet of the Trial Court itself shows that the very suit itself in MFA No.7776/2015 i.e., (OS.No.7737/2015) has been disposed of by way of compromise on 28.10.2022 itself. 2. In view of disposal of main matter itself, reviewing the order passed in MFA does not arise. Revision Petition become infructuous. Hence, Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50