- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33289 RP No. 321 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REVIEW PETITION NO.321 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.M.RAMESH BABU S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, THALAKADU HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ADARSH M LIMBIKAI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MISS.DHARANI R.BABU D/O LATE DEVIKARANI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/A. NO. 182, 4TH MAIN, OPP. TO JYOTHI CONVENT, NIMISHAMBA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 023. 2. KUM. KRUTHIKA R. BABU, D/O LATE DEVIKARANI, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, R/A NO.182, 4TH MAIN, OPP. TO JYOTHI CONVENT, NIMISHAMBA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 023. SINCE MINOR, REP BY HER MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, SMT. KOUSALYA DEVI B., NATURAL GUARDIAN OF …RESPONDENTS THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER DATED 14.06.2024 IN RPFC NO.100/2020 AND ALLOW THE Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33289 RP No. 321 of 2025 REVIEW PETITION AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 14.06.2024 passed by this Court in RPFC no.100/2020, this review petition is filed. 2. Sri Adarsh M. Limbikai, learned counsel for petitioner has filed IA no.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 382 days in filing review petition. 3. Review petition is filed seeking for review of order dated 14.06.2024 passed by this Court in RPFC no.100/2020. 4. In affidavit filed in support of application, it is stated that applicant was a retired Government employee serving in Indian Railways and was placed under suspension without regular income. He was suffering several ailments rendering him physically incapacitated and dependent on family members. That RPFC no.100/2020 came to be decided noting absence of counsel and denying opportunity of hearing, that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33289 RP No. 321 of 2025 applicant was unable to meaningfully engage with counsel. Therefore, seeks for condonation of delay. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 6. It is seen that review petitioner herein was respondent in RPFC no.100/2020. Same was disposed of by this Court on merits after hearing counsel for petitioner and noting absence of counsel for respondent. Even if petitioner herein were suffering from ailments, same would not justify absence of counsel. When matter is heard and decided on merits, application for review on ground that counsel was absent and opportunity to petitioner was denied would be too spacious. In absence of justifiable reasons for absence of counsel, I do not find any justification for condonation of delay of 382 days. IA no.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, review petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17