- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18378 WP No. 104787 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 104787 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: P. UMAPATHI NAIK S/O. N. RAMA NAIK, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. KOGALI THANDA, HB HALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583220. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: M. NAGARAJ SHETTY S/O. M. MUKKANNA SHETTY, AGE. MAJOR, R/O. #5, MG ROAD, RAMANAGARA, HB HALLI TQ. DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583212. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI & SMT. YALAGI KAVYA SHIVAPPA, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07-04-2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.4 UNDER SECTION 114 OF CPC PASSED BY LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI IN O.S. NO. 82/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE- H AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18378 WP No. 104787 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hagaribommanahalli on I.A. No.4 in O.S. No.82/2021 in a review petition where the Court has reviewed its own order. 2. In terms of the earlier order, the Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property by virtue of the agreement for sale and the possession is not transferred to the plaintiff and accordingly, has held that the document is not insufficiently stamped as contented by the defendant. 3. Defendant filed an application for review of the said order and the Court reviewed its own order and held that the document is not properly stamped. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18378 WP No. 104787 of 2025 4. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 5. The document does not reveal that the possession of the property is transferred. The plaintiff is not claiming that he is in possession of the property. The plaintiff is admitting that the defendant is in possession of the property. Thus, the earlier order passed by the Trial Court was in accordance with law. There was no error, much less the error apparent. 6. Under the circumstances, the order could not have been reviewed. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hagaribommanahalli on I.A. No.4 in O.S. No.82/2021 is set aside. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/CT-MCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 71