- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1014 RP No. 224 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REVIEW PETITION NO. 224 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SHAHIDA BEGUM W/O AMEER JAN AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.215, IV EAST JAYANGAR HUTTING COLONY THILAKNAGAR, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI BALARAM S/O LATE SANJEEVI, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. SMT.BABY W/O BALARAM AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.216, IV EAST JAYANGAR HUTTING COLONY THILAKNAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 041. 3. SRI.ARUNACHALAM S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS C/O M.S.CANDLE HOME WORKS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1014 RP No. 224 of 2025 D.NO.413, CAUVERYNAGAR 1ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 070 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 08.01.2026 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN RFA NO.1776/2006 DATED 28.03.2025 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER The notice issued to respondent No.3 is returned without a postal shara. The notice issued to respondent No.3 had been dispensed with in RFA No.1776/2006, a review of which is sought herein. Therefore, notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that this Court had allowed the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC and taken the sale deed executed by BDA on record. It is submitted that the said documents should have undergone the CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1014 RP No. 224 of 2025 test of veracity and simply by relying on the said document, the petition could not have been disposed of. 4. A perusal of the records would reveal that in paragraph No.32 of the judgment, this Court had considered this aspect and it did not rely on the said sale deed though it was taken on record and it is only noticed that it would give an impetus to the claim of defendant No.1 over the property. In that view of the matter, the review is unmerited and is dismissed. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT-SG