- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15629 R.P. No.541/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO.541/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DENIS LOBO S/O LATE CHARLES LOBO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 2. SMT. PATRICIA LOBO W/O SRI. DENIS LOBO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.306 3RD FLOOR, CRYSTAL ARC BUILDING, BALAMATTA ROAD MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ELIZABETH RODRIGUES, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. DAVID NIXON D'SOUZA S/O DENNIS D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 2. SRI. JOSEPH D'SOUZA S/O DENNIS D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 ARE R/AT. NEAR KEMMINJE TEMPEL KEMMINJE VILLAGE, DARBE POST Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15629 R.P. No.541/2022 PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574202. 3. SMT. IDA D'SOUZA W/O LOY CLAUDIUS D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. D'SOUZA COMPOUND KULSHEKARA, KAIKAMBA POST MANGALORE, D K DISTRICT 575007. 4. SRI. K. SUNIL KUMAR SHETTY S/O K. SANJEEVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT K.S.K. COMPOUND NEHARU NAGAR POST PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574204. 5. SRI. RAKESH S. KULAL S/O SHESHAPPA KULAL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NEKKARE HOUSE SHANTIGODU VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK, D K-574208. 6. THE MCC BANK LTD PUTTUR BRANCH RERPESENTED BY ITS MANAGER PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574201. 7. THE MCC BANK LTD HEAD OFFICE, MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ST. ALOYSIUS COLLEGE ROAD HAMPANKATTA, MANGALROE, D K -575001. 8. SRI. N. SUDHAKARA SHETTY S/O THYAMPANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15629 R.P. No.541/2022 9. SMT. HEMALATHA S. SHETTY W/O MR. SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 10. SRI. PAWAN S. SHETTY S/O MR. SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 11. SRI. PRAJAN S. SHETTY S/O N. SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 11 ARE R/AT SHETTY FARMS MUDUPINADKA, BADAGANNUR VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK. D.K.-574201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. CHIDANANDA KEDILAYA M, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO. 8924/2018 DATED 09/07/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT, INCLUDING AN ORDER AS TO COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15629 R.P. No.541/2022 ORAL ORDER This review petition is filed by the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.8924/2018, seeking to review the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8924/2018 (GM-CPC). 2. Smt.Elizabeth Rodrigues, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit against the respondents for the relief of specific performance to enforce the agreement of sale dated 11.03.2016 and pay the advanced sale consideration of Rs.1,72,55,378/- and the said suit is pending before the trial Court. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said suit, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit, sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.8 to 11, hence, the petitioners filed IA No.14 seeking direction against defendant Nos.1 to 3 to deposit Rs.1,26,00,000/- before the trial Court. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court, which was assailed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.8924/2018. It is further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15629 R.P. No.541/2022 submitted that retaining the amount by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 amounts to unlawful enrichment. It is also submitted that the possession was handed over to the review petitioners under the agreement and unlawfully they were dispossessed. Hence, she seeks to review the order dated 09.07.2021. 3. Per contra, Sri.M.Chidananda Kedilaya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the order dated 09.07.2021. It is further submitted that the order of this Court is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court along with the order passed in the connected writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).16716/2021 vide order dated 29.10.2021 affirmed the order of this Court. Hence, seeks to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15629 R.P. No.541/2022 4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the order under review. 5. The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.14 in O.S.No.47/2017 seeking direction to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to deposit Rs.1,26,00,000/- before the trial court. The said application was allowed by the trial Court, which was challenged by defendant Nos.1 to 3 before this Court and this Court, considering the rival submissions, at para Nos.9 to 11, assigned reasons for allowing the writ petition. The perusal of the reason indicate that the suit is pending before the parties and the contentions urged with regard to the deposit of amount is required to be adjudicated before the trial Court including the contentions urged in the petition. 6. It is also to be noticed that the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8924/2018 is affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.16716/2021 vide order dated 29.10.2021. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15629 R.P. No.541/2022 operative portion of the said order dated 29.10.2021 reads as under: "Item 13 - SLP (Civil) No.16716/2021 We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 7. Hence, I do not find any error in the reasoning of this Court in the order under review calling for interference in this petition. Thus, the review petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same is hereby rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19