- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7084 RP No. 230 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO.230 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI.N.L.KEMPAIAH @ KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA R/AT BYRAVESHWARA SAW MILL LAYADA BEEDI, FORT CHANNAPATNA - 571 501 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI.THILAKRAJ S.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.H N BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. C.N.GIRIJAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O LATE C.L.NANJUNDAIAH R/AT NO.5938/1, 19TH MAIN 16TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR BENGLAURU - 560 070 2. SMT. NANJA RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS D/O LATE C.L.NANJUNDAIAH R/AT NO.992/E, 7TH CROSS 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 082 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7084 RP No. 230 of 2024 3. SMT.SESHAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS D/O LATE C.L.NANJUNDAIAH R/AT NO.539, 16TH CROSS 35TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR VI PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078 4. SRI.C.N.PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE C.L.NANJUNDAIAH R/AT NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE FORT CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 501 5. C.N.SHIVALINGAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S SMT.PRABHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O LATE C.N.SHIVALINGAIAH 6. SRI.HARSHA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O LATE C.N.SHIVALINGAIAH 7. SRI.VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS W/O LATE C.N.SHIVALINGAIAH 8. SRI.D.KIRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O LATE C.N.SHIVALINGAIAH THE RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.557, 9TH CROSS C MAIN, 4TH CROSS RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7084 RP No. 230 of 2024 9. SRI.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETTIONER R/AT NO.1213/1 MUTT STREET, FORT CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571501 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 30.01.2023 IN THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.163/2014 AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN TERMS OF LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned review petition is filed by the appellant in RSA No.163/2014 placing reliance on the liberty allegedly reserved by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The foundation for seeking such liberty was a submission made before the Hon’ble Apex Court that the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4 were not brought on record and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7084 RP No. 230 of 2024 therefore, the appellant sought liberty to seek review of the judgment rendered by this Court. 2. The Review Petitioner, who was the appellant in RSA No.163/2014, is admittedly a pendente lite purchaser. While dismissing the second appeal, this Court has recorded categorical findings touching upon the conduct of the present Review Petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant No.7. In paragraph No.12 of the judgment, this Court has specifically observed that the Review Petitioner, despite being fully aware of the pending litigation and the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff, continued to squat over the property in question. Taking note of the said conduct, this Court held that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.41/2010 remained unaltered and binding. This Court further held that the Review Petitioner, being a pendente lite purchaser, is not entitled to question the decree on merits and is at best required to work out his equities, if any, only in respect of the properties allotted to his vendor. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7084 RP No. 230 of 2024 3. Upon a careful examination of the grounds urged in the present review petition, this Court is of the considered view that the liberty sought and obtained before the Hon’ble Apex Court was clearly misconceived. The second appeal preferred by the Review Petitioner stood dismissed on merits. Merely because the Review Petitioner’s vendor, namely N.Prasanna Kumar, is no more, it does not follow that the judgment rendered by this Court on merits is rendered vulnerable or open to review. The death of a party, in the absence of reversal of the decree, does not ipso facto dilute or unsettle the final adjudication rendered by this Court. 4. It is trite law that the plea of abatement or nullity of a decree can be legitimately raised only in cases where a decree is reversed or modified against a deceased person without bringing his legal representatives on record. In such circumstances alone, the legal heirs are entitled to contend that the decree is a nullity as having been passed against a dead person. However, where an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7084 RP No. 230 of 2024 appeal is dismissed on merits, the question of abatement or the decree being rendered a nullity does not arise at all. These fundamental and well-settled principles of law have either been consciously ignored or conveniently overlooked by Review petitioner while securing liberty at the hands of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. The grounds urged in the present review petition unmistakably disclose an attempt to seek a rehearing of the matter on merits under the guise of a review. The Review Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, which alone would attract the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A review cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise, nor can it be employed as a device to re-agitate issues which have already attained finality. 6. In the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record and having regard to the settled scope of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7084 RP No. 230 of 2024 review jurisdiction, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in the review petition. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11