- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12915-DB RP No. 100046 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100046 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: 1. RAMANAGOUDA S/O SATALINGAPPA MUDIGOUDRA AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KATAKOL TQ. RAMDURG DIST. BELAGAVI-591123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S B HEBBALLI, ADV) AND: KUTUBUDDIN S/O UMMARSAB MULLA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1 ROSHANBEGAM KUTUBUDDIN MULLA AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2. SAIDAMA MIRASAB MULLA AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 3. SUHAN SALIM DALAYAT AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 4. PARAVIN SADHIKHUSEN MULLA AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 5. TANVIRABANU KUTUBUDDIN MULLA AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 6. NAHIDA KUTUBUDDIN MULLA AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 7. TASHMIYABEGUM KUTUBUDDIN MULLA AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.03 17:00:46 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12915-DB RP No. 100046 of 2025 8. MOHAMMADYUSUF KUTUBUDDIN MULLA AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. KASABAJAMBAGI TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADV FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.114 R/W ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN RFA NO.100569/2019 DATED 27.01.2025 AND DIRECT TO REFUND OF RS. 35,00,000/- WITH 12 PERCENT INTEREST PAR ANNUM FROM DATE OF SUIT TILL REALIZATION BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED DIRECTION IN THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER i.e INSTEAD OF RS. 20,98,000/- MAINTAINING REST OF THE CONDITIONS SAME IN THE ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This review petition is filed by the petitioner to review the judgment dated 27.01.2025 passed in RFA No. 100569 of 2019. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this review petition are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12915-DB RP No. 100046 of 2025 3. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents in O.S.No.116/2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol for the relief of specific performance of contract. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 03.09.2019. 4. The respondents aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.116/2017 preferred an appeal in RFA No.100569/2019. This court by judgment dated 27.01.2025 allowed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court insofar as granting relief of specific performance of contract was set aside. The suit of the petitioner was partly decreed. The petitioner is entitled to refund an advance sale consideration amount of ₹35,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the amount. The respondents were directed to deposit the amount with accrued interest within a period of 2 ½ months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12915-DB RP No. 100046 of 2025 order, failing which, the petitioner is entitled to recover the amount by due process of law. 5. The petitioner filed this review petition on the ground that due to typographical error in the operative portion of the judgment instead of typing it as ₹35,00,000/-, typed as ₹20,98,000/-. There is an arithmetical error in the operative portion of the judgment. Hence, sought to review the judgment dated 27.01.2025 passed in RFA No.100569 of 2019. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court while passing the judgment has recorded a finding that on the perusal of the entire evidence on record and admission of the defendant regarding the execution of Ex.P2 receiving of ₹35,00,000/- as an advance consideration amount. The petitioner has proved the execution of a sale agreement dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12915-DB RP No. 100046 of 2025 20.04.2015 and the defendant received ₹35,00,000/- while typing in the operative portion of the order, it is typed as ₹20,98,000/-. Hence, prays to allow the petition and review the judgment. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and prays to dismiss the review petition. 9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The point that would arise for consideration is as follows: “Whether the petitioner proves that due to oversight in the operative portion of the judgment, instead of typing the refund of advance consideration amount, as ₹35,00,000/-, it is typed as ₹20,98,000/-“? 11. There is no dispute about the filing of suit by the petitioner in O.S.No.116/2017 for the relief of specific - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12915-DB RP No. 100046 of 2025 performance of a contract. The said suit was decreed and the trial Court granted a relief of specific performance of a contract vide judgment dated 03.09.2019. 12. The respondents aggrieved by the judgment and decree. passed in O.S.No.116/2017 preferred an appeal in RFA No.100569/2019. This court vide judgment dated 27.01.2025 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court insofar as granting the relief of specific performance of contract, and the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to refund of advance sale consideration amount of ₹35,00,000/-, but due to typographical error it is reflected as ₹20,98,000/-. 13. From the perusal of the judgment wherein the respondents have admitted that they have received ₹35,00,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount. The respondents are liable to pay advance - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12915-DB RP No. 100046 of 2025 sale consideration amount of ₹35,00,000/-. Thus, the petitioner has proved that due to the typographical error it is typed as ₹20,98,000/- instead of ₹35,00,000/-. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 14. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The review petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment dated 27.01.2025 passed in RFA No.100569 of 2019 is reviewed and held that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of advance sale consideration of ₹35,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the amount. (iii) The office is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the original - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12915-DB RP No. 100046 of 2025 judgment and issue a modified copy of the judgment. (iv) There was a typographical error. Hence, the petitioner instead of filing the application under Section 152 of CPC filed a review petition. Due to inadvertence on the part of the court the petitioner has filed a review petition and paid the court fee of ₹1,65,125/-. Thus, the registry is directed to refund the court fee paid on the review petition in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1