IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO.560 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

DR. SABEEL AHMED ALIAS MOTU DOCTOR S/O MAQBOOL AHMED AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS Digitally signed R/AT NO. 1981, 26^TH CROSS by ARSHIFA BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BAHAR KHANAM BENGALURU-560 070.

Location: HIGH …PETITIONER COURT OF (BY SRI. SADDAM R. MULLA, ADV., FOR KARNATAKA SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.,)

AND:

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU, #3^RD FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 008, REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.

…RESPONDENT - - -

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF IMPOSING COST OF RS.10,000/- WHILE DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION NO.16865/2024 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.11.2024 AT ANNEXURE A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This review petition is filed seeking a review of the judgment to review the order imposing cost on the review petitioner.

2. It is submitted that a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed. It is contended that TA amount of Rs.20,650/- has already been deposited by the review petitioner.

3. The writ petition was filed challenging an order dated 27.05.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.378/2021 by the Special Court for Trial of NI Cases. An application preferred by the writ petitioner under Sections 243(3) and 312 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 r/w Rule 4(3) of the Karnataka Payment by Government of Expenses of Complainants and Witnesses (Attending Criminal Courts) Rules, 1967 ('1967 Rules', for short), was rejected by order dated 15.11.2024.

4. This Court, specifically found that PW-13 is a Scientist at C-DAC (Centre for Development of Advanced Computing), Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. His examination-in- chief was completed on 15.02.2024. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 19.03.2024 and 05.04.2024. This Court found that Rule 4(3) of the 1967 Rules are not applicable in the instant case where the cross-examination was delayed only at the instance of the writ petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that PW-13 is a Scientist of the C-DAC and is a government servant for all practical purposes and that the 1967 Rules would be applicable in his case as well. We notice that the said contention had been specifically raised by the review petitioner before this Court in the writ petition and had been rejected by this Court.

6. In the said circumstances, on a perusal of the grounds raised in the review petition, we find that what the review petitioner is seeking is a reconsideration of the questions already decided by a speaking order of this Court. We find no grounds raised, which would justify a review of the imposition of costs which is an exercise of discretion by this Court. The review petition therefore fails, the same is accordingly, dismissed Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)

JUDGE Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

JUDGE RV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 8