V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter is listed for dictating orders. Objections statement to. A. II filed by the petitioner for urging additional grounds in the review petition is filed and the arguments are heard both on the application as well as on the merits of the review petition again.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent strongly objected for allowing the application. A. No. II placing reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2001 (4) kccr 2698 at paragraph 2.

( 3 ) THE learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance upon the provisions of rule 3 (3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) rules, 1991 (for short "rules, 1991") and Rule 7 (1) of the Rules has contended that the above said Rules have been blatently violated by the respondents 1 and 2 at the time of passing the impugned allotment order; since the said ground goes to the root of the matter and falls within the ground enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is one of the grounds for reviewing the impugned order and as such the learned Senior Counsel submits that the application. A. No. II has to be allowed.

(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document