IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REVIEW PETITION NO. 521 OF 2024

IN

R.S.A. NO.704/2018 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. B.V. MURTHY

S/O VENKATEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

RESIDENCE OF MANJUNATHA NILAYA

3^RD MAIN ROAD

9^TH CROSS ROAD

HEMAVATHI NAGARA

HASSAN - 573 201.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND:

by DEVIKA M

Location: HIGH 1. SRI. H. PARAMESH @ PRATAP

COURT OF

S/O MUTHAPPA

KARNATAKA

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

RESIDING AT AREHALLI VILLAGE

K. HOSKOTE HOBLI

ALUR TALUK -73 213

HASSAN DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH &

SRI. B.R.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATES)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47 (1)

OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN RSA NO.704/2018(SP).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Court while passing an order on R.S.A.No.704/2018, taken note of in spite of opportunity is given to the appellant in R.S.A.No.704/2018, did not pay the cost of 2,000/- as imposed on 31.05.2024 and further cost of Rs.1,000/- on 14.06.2024 and even paper book is also not filed and when there was a cross-objection, this Court dismissed the R.S.A.No.704/2018 and considered the R.S.A.CROB.No.6/2018 and disposed of the R.S.A.No.704/2018 and R.S.A.CROB.No.6/2018.

3. Now, the review petition is filed before this Court contending that earlier counsel on record has returned the papers, but, he has not given Vakalath which was sought by him. In the meanwhile, matter came up before this Court on 28.06.2024, after the retirement of the case from Sri.A.S.Mahesh who returned the file with no objection, certain papers pertaining to the matter was also not returned, the petitioner was unaware because of his age and certain age related ailments and the petitioner could not inform that cost is imposed and due to ill-health and non-appearance of the advocate when he retired from the case, consequence of which rendered dishonour, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this review petition.

4. The counsel appearing for the respondent has filed statement of objections contending that review petition is not maintainable. In paragraph No.3, specifically stated with regard to imposing of costs and non payment of costs and reason assigned by this Court and also stated that even after filing of review petition also, the same was dismissed and no sufficient cause is shown for review the same. There is a deliberate negligence and lack of diligence despite repeated indulgence shown by this Court by giving an opportunity, now, cannot make an allegation against the Court that Court has not given an opportunity and hence, cannot be entertain the review petition.

5. Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also the reasons assigned in the application and in the review petition also not specifically pleaded on what date, file was returned to the appellant. Even the counsel on record before the Court also not filed any retirement memo to retire from the case on the ground that he has already returned the papers and this averment is against the material on record. In the order sheet also it doesn't discloses that the counsel on record filed any retirement memo stating that he has already returned the papers and also considering the reasons assigned in the application and also reasons assigned in the review petition, particularly in paragraph No.6, it is stated that he has got a good case and substantial case and petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard and this averment made in paragraph No.6 is against the material on record. This Court while disposing of R.S.A.No.704/2018, in the first page of the judgment itself made it clear that inspite of costs was imp