IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REVIEW PETITION NO. 105 OF 2025 IN RFA.No.1815/2017 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

LATE K.V. KANNAN, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

1. MRS. JAMBU KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS W/O LATE K.V. KANNAN.

2. MR.DASHARATHI K.V., S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT APARTMENT NO.A1-513, SOBHA DEWFLOWER, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE- 560 078.

EARLIER R/AT :

"VEDANTA"

NO.601.15^TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE.

3. MRS. SHEELA, W/O LATE SRIPATHI K.V., S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

4. MRS. SHRUTHI RANJANI, D/O LATE SRIPATHI K.V., S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

5. MS. SRINIDHI, D/O LATE SRIPATHI, S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

6. MR. SUDHARSHAN K.V., S/O LATE K.V. SRIPATHI, S/O LATE K.V.KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 TO 6 ARE R/AT FLAT NO.104, SRI. SAILAM APARTMENT, NO.59, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION, BANGALORE- 560 019.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURAJ S., ADVOCATE )

AND:

SHRI.R.S.SRINIVASAN, S/O LATE R.S. SEETHARMAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, PARTNER, M/S.ASHOKA INDUSTRIES, SY.NO.18/3, KALENA AGRAHARA, BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 076.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRATIK PANY, ADVOCATE)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO PERUSE AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED IN THE RFA BEARING NO.1815/2017(DEC) AND ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE SAID REGULAR FIRST APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER THEREIN.

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

This review petition is filed by appellants in RFA.No.1815/ 2017, on the file of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, to review the judgment and decree passed in RFA.No.1815/2017, dated 20^th December 2024.

2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the review petitioners and the respondent.

3. The main contentions of the review petitioners are that, flow of title chart shown in the judgment at page No.18 is incorrect; Plaintiff is claiming right, title and interest in respect of Survey No.19/1, measuring 1 acre 38 guntas, but the extent mentioned in the title chart is incorrect and location of the property is also incorrect; On the basis of the said incorrect table, this Court passed the judgment; Therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which requires to be reviewed. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further contended that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has relied much on the documents produced by the defendant and much importance was not given to the documents produced by the plaintiff and they were not properly appreciated; The trial Court had not given an opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine DW-1; The defendant took about 14 adjournments to lead examination-in-chief of DW-1 and produced about 500 documents, which were marked. Plaintiff wanted to go through the said documents to prepare for cross-examination, but the trial Court did not give sufficient opportunity to cross-examine DW-1; The trial Court rejected the prayer and taken that the plaintiff had not cross-examined DW-1; Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application to recall the said order, but the trial Court rejected the said application and did not give an opportunity to cross-examine DW-1, as such, it was a denial of natural justice to the plaintiff. This fact was brought to the notice of the Court and this Court, without considering the same, looked into the documents produced by the defendant. It is also a mistake apparent on the face of the reco