Sri. Basappa v. Sri. Basavarajappa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REVIEW PETITION NO. 355 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. BASAPPA S/O. BHARMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT INDIRANAGARA, GAJANUR, MULLAKERE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR.T.M., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O. THIMMA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT INDIRANAGARA, GAJANUR-MULLAKERE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 202. …RESPONDENT

THIS RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO REVIEW PETITION AND RECALL THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RSA NO.59/2025 AND HEAR THE RSA NO.59/2025 ON MERITS BY RESTORING THE SAME ON ITS FILE AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner filed this review petition to review the judgment dated 10.03.2025 passed in RSA No.59 of 2025 on the ground that the petitioner was suffering from aliments and could not file the second appeal in time.

¶2The petitioner filed the second appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. This Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this review petition.

¶3Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unwell and he was taking treatment and as such, he could not produce the medical

certificate. This Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner produced a medical certificate to demonstrate that he was unwell. Thus, there is an error apparent on the face of record. Hence, prays to allow the review petition.

¶5Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6The petitioner preferred the regular second appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, stating that the petitioner was unwell. However, the said application was not supported by a medical certificate. This Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal.

¶7The medical records produced by the petitioner clearly disclose that the petitioner was inpatient for only two days i.e., from 14.09.2018 to 15.09.2018.

He was admitted again on

25.09.2023 and discharged on 27.09.2023. He was admitted on

26.10.2023 and discharged on 30.10.2023. The First Appellate Court disposed of the Regular Appeal on

15.12.2022. The Regular Second Appeal was filed in 2025. The petitioner was not suffering from any serious ailment.

¶8I have perused the impugned judgment, and I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record.

¶9Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

¶10In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of.

Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11