- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32357 RP No. 100 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN REVIEW PETITION NO. 100 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.20961/2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N.SARALA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O SRI. N. NAGARAJ RESIDING AT NO.65/3-1 PID NO.10-1/3-1 INDUSTRIAL SUBURB WARD NO.44, MARAPPANAPALYA BANGALORE 560 022. 2. SMT. N. GAJALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O SRI N. NAGARAJ RESIDING AT NO.65/3-1 PID NO.10-1/3-1 INDUSTRIAL SUBURB WARD NO.44, MARAPPANAPALYA BANGALORE 560 022. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.N.VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32357 RP No. 100 of 2026 AND: 1. THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE 1ST FLOOR, 12TH MAIN 11TH CROSS, NAGAPURA BANGALORE 560 086. 3. SMT. R. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS W/O SRI. N. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.23/1 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, L.N.COLONY, YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE -560 022. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 PASSSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.20961/2025 (LB-BMP) AND RESTORE W.P.NO.20961/2025 TO ITS ORIGINAL FILE BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32357 RP No. 100 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. This review petition is filed against the order passed in W.P.No.20961/2025. The petitioners herein are the petitioners in the writ petition. 2. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, upon the complaint of respondent no.3, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), now Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) has initiated action against the construction being put up by the petitioners. The said action has been challenged by the petitioners before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT). In the said proceedings, the petitioners did not implead respondent no.3 a party to the proceedings. Hence, respondent no.3 made necessary application to get herself included in the said proceedings before KAT. As respondent no.3 was a neighbour to the petitioners and their construction was affecting her; and that the BBMP, now GBA had sprung into action against the petitioners at the behest of respondent no.3; the KAT allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.20961/2025 came to be filed by the petitioners. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32357 RP No. 100 of 2026 3. As the action against the petitioners were initiated by BBMP, now GBA at the behest of respondent no.3, she has been impleaded as a party in the appeal filed by the petitioners before KAT. There is no error in the same. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. The petitioners in the review petition have failed to show how the impugned order passed in the writ petition is erroneous on the face of the record. Instead, they argue that, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing by this Court, the counsel for the petitioners could not be present before the Court and irrespective of whether the case has any merits or not, the Court could not have decided the matter based on the pleadings and at the maximum could have dismissed it for non- prosecution and an order on merits could not have been passed. Unfortunately, the counsel for the petitioners is unable to show any provision of law which prohibits the Court from proceeding with the matter on merits based on the pleadings and records produced before it, when the counsel for the petitioner stays deliberately absent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32357 RP No. 100 of 2026 5. Even otherwise, the counsel for the petitioners Sri.B.N.Vivek, who is present today and arguing the matter is not in a position to refute the fact that it has been pleaded in the writ petition that respondent no.3 is their neighbour and at her behest proceedings have been initiated by BBMP, now GBA. In fact, if anybody puts up construction in violation of building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan, a duty is cast upon the authorities concerned, in this case BBMP, now GBA to initiate appropriate action against such erring persons and demolish the illegal construction. 6. As the review petition filed is found to be frivolous and vexatious, the same is hereby dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Bengaluru Professionals Benevolent Fund by the petitioners. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26