- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8526 RP No. 576 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REVIEW PETITION NO.576 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SAVITRAMMA W/O CHIKKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, RESIDING AT NEAR ASHWATHA KATTEE, AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND M NEGLUR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. E. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE K. EERAIAH, W/O T. RAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3960, MUNICIPAL QUARTERS, SUBHASH NAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. SMT. THIMMAMMA, [DEAD], W/O LATE K EERAIAH, 2. SMT LEELAVATHI, W/O C.M LOKESH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 1640, 19TH CROSS, 19TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, B.S.K III STAGE, BANGALORE- 560 026. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8526 RP No. 576 of 2025 3. SMT. BHADRAMMA, W/O HUTCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, RESIDING AT NARAGALU VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT – 570 004. 4. M. PARVATHAMMA, W/O CHENNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.1640, 19TH CROSS, 19TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, B.S.K III STAGE, BANGALORE- 560 026. 5. E. SARASWATHAMMA W/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, AVALAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 026. 6. SMT MANGALA GOWRI, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, W/O S.R. NARASIMHA MURTHY, RESIDING AT KRISHNA NAGAR, BEHIND FIRE STATION, TUMKUR- 4. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN RFA NO.261/2012 (CONNECTED WITH RFA NO.482/2010) AND ETC., THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8526 RP No. 576 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This review petition is filed by the appellant in RFA No.261/2012 c/w RFA No.482/2010 seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2019 passed therein. 2. There is a delay of 2429 days in filing the present review petition, as such an application-I.A.2/2025 under Section 5 of Limitation Act is also filed. 3. The affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay reads as under : AFFIDAVIT I, Savitramma, Aged about 65 years, W/o late Chikkegowda, Residing at near Ashwatha Kattee, Avalahalli, Bengaluru-560026, and Residing at No. 1640, 19th Cross, 19th Main, Muneshwara Block, B.S.K III Stage, Bangalore- 560026 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. I submit that I was the defendant No. 4 in the O.S No. 2310/1998 and sole Appellant in RFA No. 261/2012. I am aware of the facts deposing hereto. All true and correct to the knowledge, information and belief. 2. I pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to read the contents of Memorandum of Review Petition as part of this Affidavit, to avoid repetition. 3. I submit that I am semiliterate woman knowing only Kannada and not English. 4. I submit that I could not read the judgment and decree of the trial court and also of this Hon'ble Court. As a result till recently I did not know that my learned Advocate in the trial court did not produce the Original Will to the Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8526 RP No. 576 of 2025 5. It is submitted that the Petitioner herein is a semi- literate knowing only Kannada, having no worldly-wise knowledge. I engaged the services of a learned Advocate by Name Shri. C S Dwarakanath, Enrollment Roll No. KAR/136/1984, address No 14/1, Sevakshetra Building, 6th Cross, 1st Main, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru-560009, to defend me in the suit. I Petitioner handed over original Will to the learned Advocate for producing before the Hon'ble Court. The learned Advocate adopted the Written Statement filed by Defendant No.2. He did not attend award about it will in the pledging He proceed a notarized copy of the Will dated 14/7/1997. The learned Advocate did not produce the Original Will to the Court, at any stage of the proceedings. This resulted in the trial court disbelieving the Will and decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff, also in respect of the Schedule Property. It is to be noted that Since this petitioner did not filed W/S but adopted the Written Statement of Defendant No.2 the additional Issue repress to same out will not to the Will dated 14/07/1997. 6. I submit that in view of the aforesaid there is a delay in filing the present petition. The delay is not deliberate. The delay happened due to the aforesaid facts and circumstances. If the delay is not condone I would be put to loss, hardship justice will suffer or the contrary if the delay is condone no harm or injury would be caused to the other side. WHEREFORE, I Pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the accompanying application in condone delay, in the interest of justice.” 4. Before adverting to the contents of the affidavit as extracted above, it is necessary to note that the originally appeal was argued by certain Sri K. S. Uday, learned advocate for Sri D. Boregowda, advocate for the appellant/review petitioner and the present review petition is filed by one Sri.Aravind M. Neglur. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8526 RP No. 576 of 2025 5. Settled principle of law is that, review petition by change of counsel generally shall not be entertained even as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. N. RAJU REDDIAR, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736. Such practice is deprecated. 6. Notwithstanding the above, the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay do not evince credibility. More particularly the contents of paragraph No.5 of the affidavit which is apart from being unclear as to what the petitioner is seeking to express, also attempts to alleged deliration of duty and misconduct on the part of the counsel engaged by the petitioner before the trial Court. Suit is of the year 1998. The judgment and decree in the said suit has been passed on 13.11.2009. Regular First appeals as noted above has been disposed of on 11.03.2019. 7. Further, on perusal of the order passed in the Regular First Appeals, more particularly, paragraph Nos.6 and 7 indicate that the very ground urged in the appeals was regarding production/non-production of the Will. The same has been considered elaborately by this Court while disposing of the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8526 RP No. 576 of 2025 appeals. As such, the grounds urged in the present review petition and the submissions being made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who was the appellant in the Regular First Appeals and defendant in the original proceedings, was not given sufficient opportunity to canvas her case with regard to the Will dated 14.07.1997 alleging non-production of the same by her earlier advocate resulting in injustice being caused to her, cannot be countenanced. 8. A review petition that too by change of counsel, cannot be permitted to reagitate the grounds of appeals. 9. The cause shown in the affidavit accompanying the application for inordinate delay of 2429 days is not satisfactory. The same is nothing but the ground being urged in the review petition. Since no cause sufficient to condone the delay is shown, I.A.2/2025 filed for condoning the delay in preferring the review petition is rejected. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11