- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26846-DB RP No. 114 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REVIEW PETITION NO. 114 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/s. NAYAK'S FINANCE AND INVESTMENT (R) KOTA REP. BY ITS PARTNERS R/O 2-20, RASHTREEYA HEDDARI 17, KOTA POST, GILIYAR, UDUPI-566 221 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS. 2. SRI. K. JAGADISH NAYAK S/O LATE K BABURAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. MRS. K. VATHSALA R NAYAK W/O K RADHAKRISHNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 4. SMT. SAVITHA R KAMATH C/O K RADHAKRISHNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. SMT. KAVITA KAMATH C/O K BABURAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 6. MRS.K RANJANI NAYAK W/O K. JAGADISH NAYAK Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26846-DB RP No. 114 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT KOTA TOWN, UDUPI THALUK (D.K)-566 221. 7. SRI. K MURALIDHARA NAYAK C/O LATE K MOHAN NAYAK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 8. SRI. K PRASHANTH NAYAK S/O OF K RADHAKRISHNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT KOTA TOWN, UDUPI THALUK (D.K)-566 221. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOVINDRAYA KAMATH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/s. JUPITER MARINES PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANOOR FISHERIES ROAD KOTA, UDUPI TALUK, KOTA -576 221 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. SRI. K.C KUNDER S/O. SRI CHIKKAYYA MARKALA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS MANGING DIRECTOR JUPITER MARINES PVT. LTD., REGD. OFFICE MANOOR FISHERIES ROAD, KOTA-576 221, UDUPI TALUK. 3. SMT RADHA KUNDER W/O SRI.K.C.KUNDER, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, DIRECTOR, JUPITER MARINES PVT.LTD., REGD. OFFICE MANOOR FISHERIES ROAD, KOTA-576 221, UDUPI TALUK. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26846-DB RP No. 114 of 2025 4. SRI SURESH KUNDER AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O SRI.K.C.KUNDER, DIRECTOR, JUPITER MARINES PVT.LTD., REGD. OFFICE MANOOR FISHERIES ROAD, KOTA-576 221, UDUPI TALUK. 5. SRI DINESH KUNDER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SRI.K.C.KUNDER, DIRECTOR, JUPITER MARINES PVT.LTD., REGD. OFFICE MANOOR FISHERIES ROAD, KOTA-576 221, UDUPI TALUK. 6. K.LAKSHMINARAYAN NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.BABURAYA NAYAK, R/A AT KOTA-576 221 UDUPI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 & R5; SMT. MAYA HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 13.04.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN RFA NO.567/2015, AS PER ANNEXURE A, BY REJECTING THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED ON 13.04.2022 JOINTLY FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THE RESPONDENT WITHOUT THERE BEING AUTHORIZATION FROM ALL THE PARTNERS OF RESPONDENT FIRM THEREIN AND RESTORE THE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26846-DB RP No. 114 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) This review petition has been filed seeking review of the Judgment and decree dated 13.04.2022 passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in RFA No.567/2015. 2. The only ground in the review petition is that except the Managing Partner, no other partners are arrayed as parties before this Court in the appeal. 3. It is not in dispute that only the Managing Partner contested the suit before the trial Court and other partners were not the parties. The firm was represented by the Managing Partner. A very strange plea has been taken in the review petition that the Managing Partner was not authorised to contest the appeal though he was authorised to contest the suit only. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26846-DB RP No. 114 of 2025 4. We find no substance in such submission. When the Managing Partner represented the firm before the trial Court and he represented the firm in the appeal, an afterthought attempt to reopen the issue cannot be allowed in a review petition. Therefore, review petition is dismissed. ORDER ON I.A.1/2025 & I.A.2/2025 Considering the contents of the application and affidavit, I.A.1/2025 and I.A.2/2025 are allowed. Learned counsel for appellants is permitted to correct the name of appellant No.4 in the cause title. Admissible Court fee may be refunded to the appellant No.4 in accordance with the relevant Rules. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4