- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010141252026 NC: 2026:KHC:42797 RP No. 92 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO.92 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. PERDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SUMANA K. D/O SANJEEV RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PERDOOR, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 124. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNA D/O LATE GULABI BHANDARTHI, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, NEAR PERDOOR MELPETE BUS STOP, PERDOOR POST AND VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 124. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010141252026 NC: 2026:KHC:42797 RP No. 92 of 2026 JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 PASSED IN RSA NO.1146/2022. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this Review Petition, the petitioner is assailing the judgment dated 18.09.2024 passed in R.S.A. No. 1146 of 2022. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Sri. Prasad Hegde K.B., learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner, by referring to the Commissioner’s report filed in W.P. No. 15851 of 2019 and sketch appended thereto, and argued that, this Court had failed to consider the said aspect of the matter while passing the impugned judgment - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010141252026 NC: 2026:KHC:42797 RP No. 92 of 2026 dismissing the Regular Second Appeal. Accordingly, he sought interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. K. Chandrakanth Ariga, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the material relied upon by the petitioner in the Review Petition is new material and that the respondent was not a party to the proceedings in which the said Commissioner’s report was prepared. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the Review Petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful consideration of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the petitioner herein, who was the defendant, himself admitted before the trial Court regarding the existence of the road in question. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010141252026 NC: 2026:KHC:42797 RP No. 92 of 2026 6. In that view of the matter, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction under Section 114 of the CPC. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of main petition, pending applications, if any, stand dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7