IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REVIEW PETITION NO. 32 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI A MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SHRI ANANDAKUMAR R/AT FLAT NO.305 A, 4^TH FLOOR M N SWASTHIK APARTMENTS GOTTIGERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560083 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHAKARA LAXMANA SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. GEETHA KALLUR Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS by SUNITHA K S D/O SRI. GANGADHAR KALLUR Location: H IGH W/O SRI A MANJUNATH COURT OF R/AT NEAR PADAGATTI KARNATAKA LAKSHMESHWARA SHIRAHATTI TALUK GADAG DISTRICT …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE

1 OF CPC R/W ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.5037 OF 2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE WRIT PETITION No.5037 OF 2023.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

This Review Petition is filed to review the order dated

06.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.5037/2023. In the said writ petition the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had withdrawn M.C.No.1148/2019 on 17.06.2023. In view of the same, the writ petition has become infructuous, based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.

2. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this review petition on the ground that, the respondent has filed an execution petition in E.P.No.121/2022 for the execution of an order dated 10.10.2019 passed in M.C.No.1148/2019. It is submitted that, the petitioner’s counsel or his colleague did not appear before the Court on 06.12.2024 in the said writ petition, and it is learnt that the respondent counsel was present before the Court in the said writ petition on 06.12.2024. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, prays to review the order.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel was not present, as on the date of passing of an order in the aforesaid writ petition, and the execution petition was filed to execute the order dated 10.10.2019 passed in M.C. No.1148/2019. He submits that, the said order is passed in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, on this ground, he prays to review the said order.

5. I have perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated

11.01.2022 passed in M.C.No.1148/2019, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5037/2023. The matter was listed before the Court on 06.12.2024 wherein, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared, and submitted that the petitioner had withdrawn M.C.No.1148/2019 on 17.06.2023, as the writ petition arise out of the interlocutory order passed in M.C.No.1148/2019 dated

11.01.2022.

7. The petitioner has not disputed regarding the dismissal of the case in M.C.No.1148/2019.

8. I have perused the case status of the Family Court in M.C.No.1148/2019, which discloses that the M.C. No.1148/2019 was disposed of, on 17.06.2023. When the M.C. No.1148/2019 was disposed of, on 17.06.2023, nothing survives for consideration in the writ petition, and the writ petition has become infructuous, and this Court has rightly passed the order on 06.12.2024.

Hence, I do not find any error, apparent on the face of the record.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Review petition is dismissed.

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/-

(ASHOK S.KINAGI)

JUDGE BVK