- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12168 RP No. 100030 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 100030 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. TALAKAL SAVITRAMMA W/O VAMANNA AGED 54 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE 2. TALKAL BASAVARAJ S/O VAMANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 3. TALAKAL PRAVEEN KUMAR W/O VAMANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. TALAKAL PRASHANTH KUMAR W/O VAMANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT. MAHAJANADAHALLI IN HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKAVVA W/O SHIVANAGOUDA AGED 68 YEARS R/O. MAHAJANADAHALLI IN HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12168 RP No. 100030 of 2023 2. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O SHADAKSHARA GOUDA MAJOR R/O. KANNIHALLI HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101 3. BASAMMA W/O JAMBAGOUDA MAJOR R/O. KANNAHALLI VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101 4. SMT. MALLAMMA W/O HANUMAREDDY MAJOR R/O. KAKBAL HOSPET TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583101 5. SRI. M. VEERESH S/O DODDABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. S. GANGALAPUR SANDUR TALUK-583110 BELLARY DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.F.A NO.1893/2007 TO ALLOW THE RFA OF THE PETITIONER. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12168 RP No. 100030 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for review of the judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed in R.F.A No.1893/2007. 2. The grounds urged in support of the petition give an impression that the petitioners are trying to challenge the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by this Court. The appropriate course for the petitioners was to file an appeal against the judgment and not to seek review. After perusing the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the judgment passed by this Court. 3. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2023 for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is rejected. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1