- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1393 RP No. 557 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO.557 OF 2025 IN R.S.A.NO.1065/2025 (POS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.R.LAKSHMANACHARI, S/O SRI. RAMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1857/5, 2ND CROSS, 4TH WARD, PRASHANTHANAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN AND DISTRICT-562101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOJ S.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K.P.NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE PILLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1857/5, 2ND CROSS, 4TH WARD, PRASHANTHANAGAR CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN AND DISTRICT-562101. …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2025 PASSED IN RSA NO.1065/2025 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1393 RP No. 557 of 2025 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER COUNSEL TO ARGUE ON MERITS OF THE MATTER AND PASS ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS DEEMS FIT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner. The grounds urged in the review petition is that the mother of the learned counsel for the review petitioner was diagnosed with cancer and hence, could not effectively make the submission before the Court. 2. On perusal of the records, it discloses that the matter was disposed of hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties. This Court having considered the factual aspects of the case in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 and considering the material on record, particularly in paragraph No.11 comes to the conclusion that there was a sale in the year 2006 and in turn, a second sale was made in favour of the plaintiff in 2010 by Chaitra. Both the Courts have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1393 RP No. 557 of 2025 appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record and all the documents clearly discloses that title flows in favour of Chaitra and in turn Chaitra executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and even extracted the admission on the part of D.W.1 and D.W.2. The First Appellate Court also re-appreciated the material on record considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also taken note of the earlier judgment and decree passed in favour of the defendant in O.S.No.113/2012 and the same is only for protecting the possession of the defendant and evicting the appellant under due process of law. Subsequently, notice was issued and thereafter filed the suit. Both the Courts have considered the material on record in a proper perspective and hence, dismissed the second appeal. 3. When this Court in detail considered the matter in the presence of the respective learned counsel and also taken note of the material on record, I do not find any ground to consider the review petition when there is no error apparent on the face of the record and a detailed order was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1393 RP No. 557 of 2025 passed at the time of disposal of the second appeal, which runs to 13 pages. No ground is made out to review the order passed by this Court when a detailed order has been passed and no scope for reviewing the earlier order and the learned counsel for the petitioner’s mother was diagnosed with cancer cannot be a ground to review the order, since the same is considered at the time of admission. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22