- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43684 RP No. 63 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO.63 OF 2025 IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1290/2017 BETWEEN: 1. D. SHIVALINGE GOWDA DEAD BY HIS LRS. SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE D SHIVALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT KAMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK -570003 2. SRI. NARAYANA K S S/O LATE D SHIVALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT KAMMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-570003 3. SRI. MALIKA S/O LATE D SHIVALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KAMANKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK -570003 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI C R SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE A/W MS. MANJULA D AND SRI PAVAN KUMAR N, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43684 RP No. 63 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. SANNAMMA D/O LATE RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT KAMAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU -570003 2. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT KAMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU- 570003 3. PRAKASH S/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT KAMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU- 570003 4. SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KAMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU- 570003 5. SMT. RENUKA S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KAMAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU- 570003 6. NAGARAJU S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT KAMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43684 RP No. 63 of 2025 KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK – 570 003 7. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KAMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU- 570003 8. SMT. NAGAMMA D/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KAMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU- 570003 9. SMT. SUDHA D/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA W/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KAMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU- 570003 10. SMT. NINGAMMA D/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KAMANAKEREHUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU- 570003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESHCHANDRA B N, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DT.03.04.2025 & 17.04.2025 SRI S SUPREETH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 [VK NOT FILED]; V/O DT.03.04.2025, NOTICE TO R2 TO R10 IS D/W) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43684 RP No. 63 of 2025 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 (A) R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGEMENT DATED 13.03.2023 PASSED IN RSA NO.1290/2017 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners on I.A.No.1/2025 wherein there is a delay of 661 days delay in filing this review petition. 2. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to stating that the matter was disposed upon 13.03.2023 and on the very same day applied for certified copy, but he has contacted the advocate in the month of December 2024. But no reason has been assigned to show that what prevented from 13.03.2023 till second week of December, 2024. The reason assigned that he is an illiterate person and not having knowledge about the procedure. It is very clearly mentioned that he had the knowledge of disposal of the appeal and also applied for the certified copy on the very same day but contacted his advocate after long time. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43684 RP No. 63 of 2025 3. Statement of objections are also filed by the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 wherein also it is contend that the averments made in the application to condone the delay in filing the review petition is not satisfactory since the petitioners have the knowledge of disposal of the second appeal and applied for certified copy of the same on the very day and the petitioners were represented through a counsel and matter was heard on merits and after lapse of more than 1½ years, they have filed this review petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and also considering the material on record, it discloses that no ground is made out to condone the delay in filing this review petition. The reason assigned in the application is that the petitioners are illiterate and do not have the knowledge about the procedure but in paragraph 3, it is stated that the petitioners are having the knowledge about the disposal of the matter and applied for certified copy of the same on the date of disposal itself. The records also discloses that the matter was heard from both the sides on merits and thereafter the appeal was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43684 RP No. 63 of 2025 dismissed and after lapse of more than 1½ years, the petitioners have filed this review petition. Hence, the petitioners have not made any grounds to condone the delay of 661 days in filing the review petition and each day delay has to be explained satisfactorily but the reason given to condone the delay in filing the review petition is not satisfactory. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, review petition is also dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the review petition, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN