- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42806 RP No. 708 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REVIEW PETITION NO. 708 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI SYED KHAWJA, S/O B.A. SHAHANAWAZ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.4611, OPP. NANDINI TUTORIALS, NEAR GURU BHAVANA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL, DISTRICT- 562 132. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SADIQUNNISA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SYED AMANULLAH KHADRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H S RUDRESHA, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT HUNNIGERE VILLAGE, SONDEKOPPA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 132. 2. SMT JAGADHAMBA, W/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT HUNNIGERE VILLAGE, SONDEKOPPA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42806 RP No. 708 of 2022 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 132. 3. SMT MAHADEVAMMA, D/O LAWTE SHIVANNA, W/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT HUNNIGERE VILLAGE, SONDEKOPPA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 132. 4. SMT LALITHAMMA, D/O LATE SHIVANNA, W/O KARISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT ADAKAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALKALLI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD 22.04.2025, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS H/S; R4 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 04/08/2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO.22548/2019 (GM- CPC) BY PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND RECALL THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42806 RP No. 708 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER This review petition is filed under Section 144 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC with a prayer to review the Order dated 04.08.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22548/2019. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner had filed O.S.No.95/2015 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents herein. It was the case of the petitioner that under the agreement for sale dated 29.03.2003 he was put in possession of the suit schedule property by the defendant. Subsequently I.A.No.2 was filed in the said suit under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint by incorporating certain paragraphs and also an additional prayer seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 29.03.2003. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42806 RP No. 708 of 2022 therefore petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.22548/2019 which was dismissed by this Court reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a separate suit seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 29.03.2003. It appears that thereafter petitioner had filed O.S.No.419/2022 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dated 29.03.2003. This review petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an observation made by this Court that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in this petition submits that nowhere in the pleadings in O.S.No.95/2015 or in the pleadings in W.P.No.22548/2019, it was stated that petitioner was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants during the pendency of O.S.No.95/2015, but inadvertently this Court while disposing of W.P.No.22548/2019 has recorded that during the pendency of the suit, petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42806 RP No. 708 of 2022 was forcibly dispossessed by the defendant. He submits that to that extent the order passed in W.P.No.22548/2019 is required to be modified. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent fairly submits that either in the pleadings in O.S.No.95/2015 or in the pleadings in W.P.No.22548/2019 no where it is stated about the dispossession of the petitioner in W.P.No.22548/2019 by the defendants. He submits that it is the specific defence of the defendants in O.S.No.95/2015 that they are in possession of the suit scheduled property. He submits that notwithstanding any observation made by this Court in W.P.No.22548/2019 and in the order passed on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.95/2015, the Jurisdictional Civil Court is required to decide O.S.No.419/2022 independently. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42806 RP No. 708 of 2022 6. Perusal of the material record would go to show that in O.S.No.95/2015 petitioner who is the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he is in possession of suit schedule property under the agreement for sale date 29.03.2003. Whereas the defendants in the said suit have opposed the prayer made in the suit and have claimed that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that either in the pleadings in O.S.No.95/2015 or in the pleadings found in W.P.No.22548/2019, nowhere it is stated that the petitioner in W.P.No.22548/2019 who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.95/2015 was forcibly dispossessed by defendants during the pendency of the suit. 7. As a matter of fact, it is the specific case of the defendants in the said suit that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the observation found in paragraph No.3 as well as paragraph No.6 of the order passed in W.P.No.22548/2019 that petitioner in W.P.No.22548/2019 was forcibly dispossessed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42806 RP No. 708 of 2022 defendants during to the pendency of the suit has erroneously crept in and the said observation made by this Court while disposing of W.P.No.22548/2019 is required to be deleted. To that extent, the order dated 04.08.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22548/2019 is required to be modified. Accordingly the following: ORDER (i) The review petition is partly allowed. (ii) The observation made by this Court in paragraph No.3 and paragraph No.6 of the order dated 04.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.22548/2019 to the effect that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed by the defendant shall stand deleted. (iii) The suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance in O.S.No.419/2022 shall be decided by the Jurisdictional Court, not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42806 RP No. 708 of 2022 being influenced by any observation made by this Court in W.P.No.22548/2019 or any observation made by the jurisdictional Civil Court in O.S.No.95/2015. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2