PRAKASH S/O YALLAPPA NAVALUR v. SMT SHIVAVVA W/O YALLAPPA SABARAD
RP/100076/2024 · 2025-02-01
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5141 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5141 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2057 RP No. 100076 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.100076 OF 2024 BETWEEN:
PRAKASH S/O. YALLAPPA NAVALUR, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HUDED ONI, AMMINABHAVII-580201, TQ./DIST. DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SHIVAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA SABARAD, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. MAREWAD-58, TQ./DIST. DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW/RECALL THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN M.F.A. NO.105069/2019 BY THIS COURT AND DISMISS THE M.F.A. NO.105069/2019 AS AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2057 RP No. 100076 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
This review petition is filed praying to review and recall the order passed by this Court in MFA No.105069/2019 dated
03.10.2023.
2. The ground urged in the review petition and also the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the review petitioner is not the owner of tractor and trailer.
3. The review petitioner has received notice by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. But he has not taken any contention by appearing before the Tribunal by showing that he is not the owner of tractor and trailer. According to him, his father was the owner of the tractor and trailer and also in the appeal, review petitioner was respondent in claim petition as well as in the appeal, but he did choose to make representation through advocate. Therefore, the review petitioner being respondent in claim petition as well as in the appeal, kept silent and he has not stated either before the tribunal or before this Court that he was not the owner of the tractor and trailer.
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2057 RP No. 100076 of 2024
4. Therefore, having considered all these facts, there is no ground to make review of the order as prayed by the review petitioner.
5. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
PMP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12