- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47006 RP No. 473 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REVIEW PETITION NO. 473 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI THOMAS S/O G ALEXANDRA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. SMT AMALOPAV MARY W/O LATE THOMAS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO 44, 6TH CROSS S R NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. 2. SMT SYLVESTER LOURDU RANI D/O LATE THOMAS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO 21, SHIYALI STREET PUDUPET, CHENNAI 600 002. 3. SMT JENITH LEONA D/O LATE THOMAS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO 44, 6TH CROSS S R NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARISH H V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT ELIZABETH IRADIYA RANI Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47006 RP No. 473 of 2023 D/O LATE ALEXANDAR AGED ABOUT MAJOR RA/AT NO BIK 437 18-1369, AMG MO KIO AVE 10 SINGAPORE- 560 437. 2. SMT MARIA PUSHPAM W/O LATE RAJKANTH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO 13, 13TH CROSS CUBBONPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. SRI SELVARAJ S/O LATE RAJKANTH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO 13, 13TH CROSS CUBBONPET, BENGALURU -560002. 4. SMT HELEN JOSEPHINE W/O S I THOMAS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT MANAPARI, TRICHY DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 600 011. 5. SRI MICHEAL S/O LATE RAJKANTH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT MANNIPARI, TRICHY DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 600 011. 6. SRI ARUL MARY W/O FELIX AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT CUDDALORE TAMIL NADU - 600 011. 7. SRI JAMES DHANASINGAM S/O G ALEXANDRA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO 42, 6TH CROSS SAMPANGI RAMANAGAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47006 RP No. 473 of 2023 BENGALURU - 560027. 8. SRI PHILIP RAJ S/O G ALEXANDAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO 3, 30TH CROSS KILARI ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002. 9. SRI FRANCIS SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 9(a) SMT. CHIRSTY W/O LATE FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 9(b) RENNY D/O LATE FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 9(c) JERRY S/O LATE FRANCIS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENTS 9 TO 9(c) R/AT 81, ANCHEPET AVENUE ROAD CROSS BENGALURU - 560 053. 10. SMT AGNES SAGAYA RANI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O LATE THOMAS R/T 424, M MONTESOLLO STREET MOUNTAIN HOUSE, CA 95391 (4-S4) HAVING PRESENT ADDRESS AT NO 44, 6TH CROSS, S R NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. 11. SRI VIVEK ALEXANDRA S/O LATE THOMAS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO 44, 6TH CROSS S R NAGAR, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47006 RP No. 473 of 2023 BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R3, R8, 11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. SAMUEL S. DANDIN., ADVOCATE FOR R7; NOTICE TO R4, R5, R6 & R9(a-c), R10 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW ORDER DATED 22/06/2015, PASSED IN RFA NO.3/2010, PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.H.V.Harish, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri.H.R.AnanthaKrishnamurthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. I.A.No.1/2023 is filed to condone the huge delay of 2995 days in filing the review petition. Application is supported by an affidavit of the review petitioner wherein it is contended that husband of the first petitioner namely Thomas died on 03.03.2010. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47006 RP No. 473 of 2023 3. It is further contended that title deeds of `C' schedule property was misplaced at home and same could not be produced inspite of diligent search. After thorough search, the document which are filed along with I.A.No.1/2023 which is a registered exchange deed was traced and thereafter review petitioner fell sick and was suffering from fever and jaundice and was taking native medicine. 4. Therefore the review petitioner could not contact her advocate to file review petition in time. It is also contended that the final judgment in RFA No.3/2010 came to be passed without production of the said exchange deed and therefore the review petitioner has been put to great hardship. 5. Sri.H.V.Harish, learned counsel for the review petitioners reiterating the aforesaid aspects, contended that in view of registered exchange deed, the Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.3/2010 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47006 RP No. 473 of 2023 needs to be reviewed by condoning the delay as the respondent is party to such exchange deed. 6. Sri.H.R.Ananthakrishnamurthy, learned counsel for the contesting respondent opposes the application by contending that the application is bald and without any valid reasons to condone the huge delay of 2995 days. 7. He would also contend that in the first appeal itself, vide item No.5, the exchange deed was placed on record. But the Court did not consider the same and rejected the prayer including the application vide item No.5 seeking additional evidence to be placed on record. 8. It is also his contention that in the final decree proceedings before the trial Court, in the year 2020, the exchange deed is placed on record and therefore the bald affidavit without material particulars seeking condonation of delay needs to be rejected. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47006 RP No. 473 of 2023 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that huge delay of 2995 days needs to be explained by the review petitioner with necessary factual aspects of the matter. 11. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/2023 is vague and without any material particulars. After the demise of husband of the review petitioner in the year 2010, what steps have been taken by the review petitioner and when exactly she traced the exchange deed is not mentioned in the affidavit. 12. So also, material particulars with regard to her ill health is not forthcoming on record. Mere mentioning that she was taking native medicine would not be sufficient enough to hold that the review petitioner was precluded from approaching the Court in time. When exactly was the ill health. When she became healthy and when exactly was the document traced are all not forthcoming on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47006 RP No. 473 of 2023 13. In other words, the affidavit contents are not sufficient enough to condone the huge delay of 2995 days. Moreso, when the petitioner has filed the copy of the exchange deed before the Court which is seized of the Final decree proceedings in the year 2020 itself. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the huge delay of 2995 days in filing the review petition cannot be condoned. Moreover on merits also as is pointed out by Sri.H.R.Ananthakrishnamurthy, an attempt was made to place the Exchange deed on record vide I.A.No.5 in RFA No.3/2010. But the same is rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 15. Under such circumstances, it should not lie in the mouth of the review petitioner that the exchange deed was traced recently and therefore matter requires review. 16. The review can be sought for by a party if there is a patent error on the material facts placed on record or - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47006 RP No. 473 of 2023 on application of incorrect proposition of law. But in the case on hand, no such material error is forthcoming from the grounds urged in the review petition. 17. Hence viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the delay cannot be condoned and review petition cannot be entertained on merits. Accordingly following: ORDER (i) I.A.No.1/2023 is rejected. (ii) Consequently review petition is dismissed. (iii) Pending IAs are consigned to records. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24