- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38453 RP No. 346 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 346 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.RADHA W/O. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. HARSHAVARDHANA .P S/O. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 3. KUMARI. NAYANA.P D/O. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1, 2, & 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.209, BHARATH HOUSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS, BHBCS UTTARAHALLI, WARD NO.55, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560061. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KAMALESHWARA POOJARY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI PUTTASWAMY S/O. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARAYANANILAYA, BEHIND SHAM TALKIES, KUVEMPU NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38453 RP No. 346 of 2025 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2024 PASSED IN WP NO.24076/2024 AND THEREBY TO DELETE OR REMOVE CONDITION NO. 5 OF THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WP NO. 24076/2024 DATED 25.11.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE PARTIES TO FOLLOW COMPROMISE DECREE EFFECTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN OS NO. 170/2015 AND OS NO. 300/2018 DATED 25.04.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE B BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION WITH COST. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for review of the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court in WP No.24076/2024. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by relief No.v granted in the writ petition. The order in WP No.24076/2024 shows that relief No.v was an arrangement made by the Court to enable the petitioner to sell the property in possession of the respondent and hand over 30% of the value to the respondent. The petitioner has not been able to take advantage of the said order. Now they want to seek review of the writ petition to delete relief No.v so as to retain possession of the property, which the respondent had delivered. This Court after perusing the order, does not see any infirmity or error apparent on the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38453 RP No. 346 of 2025 face of record warranting review. If the petitioner desires to enforce the compromise decree passed in the suit, he may do so in the manner known to law. There is no justification to review the order passed by this Court. 3. Hence, the review petition is dismissed, but subject to the observations made above. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1