2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
R.P.No.835/2015 IN W.P.No.19145/2010 (GM – DRT)
BETWEEN :
1 .
CANARA KRISHI AGENCIES
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
R.NANDAKUMAR
S/O RAMACHANDER
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
2 .
SMT.SANDHYA NANDAKUMAR
W/O R.NANDAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3 .
R.GURUPRASAD
S/O RAMACHANDER
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.401
LAXMINAGAR APARTMENTS
KODIALBAIL,
MANGALORE-575 003
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADV.)
- 2 -
AND :
1 .
CANARA BANK
MORGANS GATE BRANCH
MANGALORE-575 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
2 .
SMT.HELAN
W/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR
3 .
SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR
(SINCE DECEASED, DELETED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 07.02.2022.)
4 .
SRI ESHWAR KUMAR
S/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR
5 .
SMT.USHA
D/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR.
6 .
SMT.SHARMILA
D/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR.
7 .
SRI PREMKUMAR
S/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR.
8 .
SRI KRISHNAKUMAR
AGED MAJOR
S/O G. MAYAKUMAR
9.
SRI. JAIKUMAR
AGED MAJOR
S/O G. MAYAKUMAR
10.
MANGAL KUMAR
(DELETED V/O DATED 18.01.2021)
R-2 TO R-7 & R9 ARE
R/AT NO.56 (NEW NO.21)
B-STREET, II CROSS,
DOBBASPET, VASANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 052
- 3 -
11 . THE S.K.AGRICULTURISTS CO-OPERATIVE
MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,
SAHAKARI MAHAL
MANGALORE-575 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.N.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R-2, R-4 TO R-7 & R-9;
R-1 SERVED; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.02.2022,
R-3 IS DELETED; NOTICE TO R-8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 15.12.2017.)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2011
PASSED IN W.P.NO.19145/2010 (GM-DRT), ON THE FILE OF
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioners have sought for review of the order
dated 15.02.2011 passed in W.P.No.19145/2010 (GM-
DRT) whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners
herein, has been dismissed.
2.
The
petitioners
had
filed
W.P.No.19145/2010 challenging the order of Debt
Recovery
Appellate
Tribunal,
Chennai
in
R.A.Nos.65/2005 and 27/2006 dated 25.08.2006. This
- 4 -
Court being not convinced with the explanation offered
by the petitioners for challenging the order at the
belated stage i.e., after more than four years held that it
is not possible for the Court to entertain the writ
petition and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
The said order dated 15.02.2011 was challenged by the
petitioners before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP
No.11362/2011 which came to be dismissed vide order
dated 02.05.2011.
3.
This review petition has been filed by the
petitioners primarily on the ground that subsequent to
dismissal of the W.P.No.19145/2010 and SLP on
02.05.2011,
respondent
No.11
herein
–
S.K.
Agriculturists Co-operative Marketing Societies Limited
had filed W.P.No.16323/2006 before this Court. In the
said proceedings, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court,
where one of us, Hon’ble SSJ was member, has
dismissed the said writ petition observing that if the
- 5 -
petitioner therein – S.K. Agriculturists Co-operative
Marketing Societies Limited had issued the cheques in
favour of the original borrower, in the absence of
Annexures – 51 and 52 and even if the said cheques
were dishonoured, in such an event, it was for the bank
to proceed against the original borrower and not against
the petitioner therein – The S.K. Agriculturists Co-
operative Marketing Societies Limited.
4.
Learned
Senior
counsel
Sri.
D.R.
Ravishankar representing the petitioners would submit
that in view of the two conflicting orders in existence,
review of the order dated 15.02.2011 passed in
W.P.No.19145/2010 is necessary. Learned Senior
counsel would submit that dismissal of the SLP
No.11362/2011 would not be a bar for filing the review
petition before this Court seeking review of the order
dated 15.02.2011 in view of the subsequent order
passed
in
W.P.No.16323/2006
(D.D.
13.01.2015).
- 6 -
Learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.M.
Thomas vs. State of Kerala and another reported in
(2000) 1 SCC 666 and Shivdev Singh and others vs.
State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1963 SC
1909.
5.
We
have
carefully
considered
the
submissions made by the learned Senior counsel and
perused the material on record.
6.
The basis for preferring this review petition
appears to be the order passed in W.P.No.16323/2006
(D.D. 13.01.2015). It cannot be gainsaid that the
petitioners herein, were arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to
4 in the said writ petition proceedings and they were
represented by the learned counsel who was heard in
the matter. Any order passed on merits in the said writ
petition, if is aggrieved by the parties, the remedy would
have been to challenge the said order. That exercise not
- 7 -
having been done by the petitioners herein, allowing the
order passed in the said W.P.No.16323/2006 to attain
finality and now seeking review of the order dated
15.01.2011 passed in W.P.No.19145/2010 which has
reached finality in terms of the order passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.11362/2011 is nothing
but abuse of process of Court. The judgments referred
to, by the learned Senior counsel with great respect, are
not applicable to the facts of the present case.
7.
There is no cavil on the legal proposition that
High Court as a Court of record, as envisaged in Article
215 of the Constitution of India has inherent powers to
correct the records. If any apparent error is noticed by
the High Court, jurisdiction of review would be
exercised. But in the present set of facts, no error
apparent on the face of the record is found to interfere
with the order passed in W.P.No.19145/2010 which was
dismissed on the grou