- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39283 RP No. 415 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 415 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. H.M. PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 84, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560027 PRESENTLY CARRYING BUSINESS AT NO.14, GENEVA HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. H.J. SIWANI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. MR. J.K. SIWANI 2. M/S. H.M. SIWA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 84, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560027 PRESENTLY CARRYING BUSINESS AT NO.14, GENEVA HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. H.J. SIWANI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O MR. J.K. SIWANI Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39283 RP No. 415 of 2024 3. M/S. H.M. HOLIDAY HOMES PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 84, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560027 PRESENTLY CARRYING BUSINESS AT NO.14, GENEVA HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. H.J. SIWANI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. MR. J.K. SIWANI …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PRATHAP D., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. DHANANJAYA REDDY, R/AT NO.901, SHESHASAI NILAYA, 5TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT, MARATHALLI, BENGALURU-560037. 2. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, D/O. LATE SHIVANNA, 3. SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENKATESHAPPA, RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 R/AT NO.143, NALLURAHALLI VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560065 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39283 RP No. 415 of 2024 4. SRI. SHIVAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, 5. SRI. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH, 6. SRI. HARIPRASAD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SIDDAPPA, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 R/AT: NALLURAHALLI VILLAGE WHITEFIELD POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560065 7. SRI. MADHAVA C.S. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SOMAYAJI, NO.55, 1ST CROSS, R.K. HEGDE NAGAR, BENGALURU-560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.G. DEVISREE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3 AND 5 SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2024 IN M.F.A. NO. 2041/2024 (CPC) AND DISMISS M.F.A. NO. 2041/2024 (CPC) IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39283 RP No. 415 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This review petition is filed to review the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by this Court in MFA No.2041/2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though certain facts were admitted by the defendants, this Court had recorded a finding that: (i) “Therefore, there appears to be an attempt by the plaintiffs to usurp item Nos.1 to 18 of the suit schedule 'B' property based on the power of attorney dated 19.05.1995." (ii) “therefore it could be prima facie held that the plaintiffs were unable to establish the existence of the suit 'B' schedule property." (iii) The plaintiffs did not produce any document to establish the existence of the sites described in schedule 'B' to the plaint." (iv) Having regard to the fact that there are no developments over the suit schedule properties.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39283 RP No. 415 of 2024 2. The learned counsel contends that these observations are likely to embolden the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 herein to misuse it. He also contends that the respondent No.1 has been claiming before various authorities that this Court had already recorded a finding that there are no documents to support the claim of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are trying to grab suit item Nos.1 to 18 of the suit ‘B’schedule property. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that these findings are tentative in nature and does not confer any right either upon the plaintiff or upon the petitioners. He contends that therefore there is no need to review the order passed by this Court. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 5. After perusing the order dated 08.04.2024, this Court had secured the records in MFA No.2041/2024. After perusing the records in MFA No.2041/2024, this Court is of the opinion that the observations made by this Court, were based - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39283 RP No. 415 of 2024 on the records, which, as rightly as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 were tentative and not final. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court does not see any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 08.04.2024. However, the observations made by this Court while disposing MFA No.2041/2024 shall for all times to come be treated as tentative and not final. 7. It is also made clear that the observations recorded in MFA No.2041/2024 do not confer any right upon either the petitioners or respondent No.1. It is for the Trial Court to decide all contentions of facts and law in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1