- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3420 RP No. 100191 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 100191 OF 2014 (-) BETWEEN: B. PUSHPALINGAM SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. CHANDRAMOHAN S/O. B.PUSPALINGAM AGED ABOUT 54 YERAS, R/O. KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI- 378/13, 10TH CROSS, KESHWAPUR. 2. SATISH KUMAR NO.2 S/O B.PUSHPALINGAM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ENGINEER, R/O. BANGALORE.378/13, 10TH CROSSS, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI. 3. PRABHU NO.3 S/O. B.PUSHPALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YERAS, ENGINEER, R/O. DUBAI.378/13, 10TH CROSS, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GANDHIWADA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., HUBBALLI BY ITS (HONORARY) SECRETARY, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3420 RP No. 100191 of 2014 2. K. R. RADHAKRISHAN RAJU NO.2, (NOT PARTY TO LIS AS HE WAS GIVEN UP IN COURT BELOW BY PLAINTIFF). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) ------ THIS RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE INSTANT REVIEW PETITIONER AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.06.2014 PASSED IN R.S.A.535/2007 BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING APPEAL. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This Review Petition is filed by the appellants 1 to 3 in RSA No.535/2007 seeking review of the order of this Court dated 12.06.2014 in the aforesaid appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Sri. Mallikarjunaswami B Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/the appellants in RSA No.535/2007, argued that this Court has ignored the fact that the petitioner/B.Pushpalingam had filed suit against respondent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3420 RP No. 100191 of 2014 No.2 herein and in the said suit, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) seeking attachment of property belonging to the respondent No.2 and the said suit is for recovery of money. It is submitted that the said aspect of the matter was not considered by this Court while disposing of the Regular Second Appeal and it s difficult for the petitioners herein/plaintiffs to recover the dues from respondent No.2. It is also argued by Sri. Mallikarjunaswami B Hiremath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein, that the subject matter of the attachment of property, sought to be made in the said application, was allotted in favour respondent No.2 by the respondent No.1 and therefore, the said aspect has not been considered by this Court while disposing of the second appeal. He also refers to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.11.2014 in SLP No.30723-724/2014. Accordingly, submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which requires to be interfered with in this petition. 4. Per contra, Sri. Shriharsh Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, invited the attention of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3420 RP No. 100191 of 2014 this Court to the paragraph 21 and 22 of the order passed by this Court dated 12.06.2014 and argued that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein has been considered at length by this Court while disposing of the second appeal and therefore, submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the review petition. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the order dated 12.06.2014 in RSA No.535/2007. Perusal of the same would indicate that the interlocutory application filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC filed by the petitioners herein in O.S.No.29/1974 wherein the suit has been filed by the petitioners herein against the respondent No.2 seeking recovery of money. The subject matter in the application was a site appears to have been allotted by the respondent No.1- Society. It is also submitted by Sri. Shriharsh Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the respondent No.1 herein has cancelled this allotment made in favour of respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, the language employed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC where it - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3420 RP No. 100191 of 2014 is open for the plaintiff to seek attachment of the property before the judgment in the event the defendant intend to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him. 6. Perusal of the finding recorded by this Court would indicate that the respondent No.1 herein has not executed absolute sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 herein. In that view of the matter, being an allottee of the said property, the respondent No.2 has no legal right over the property in question. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the finding recorded by this Court at paragraph 21 and 22 of the impugned order, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record as required under Section 114 of CPC. Accordingly, following the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others reported in (2021) 13 SCC 1, I do not find any material to interfere with the order impugned in this revision petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3420 RP No. 100191 of 2014 7. In view of disposal of the petition pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18