Dr. Divya J vs Sri B N Govindaiah - Review Petition

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 13, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Dr. Divya J vs Sri B N Govindaiah on 18 March, 2026

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15997
RP No. 365 of 2025

               HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                        BEFORE

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

                           REVIEW PETITION NO.365 OF 2025
                                          IN
                              R.S.A. NO.1428/2024 (RES)

               BETWEEN:

               1.    DR. DIVYA J.,
                     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                     D/O LATE G.L. JAYPAL,
                     RESIDING AT HOLENARSIPURA ROAD,
                     OPPOSITE FILTER HOUSE,
                     CHANNARAYAPATNA
                     HASSANA DISTRICT-573116.
                                                            ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
                             MS. MAHESHWARI D.M., ADVOCATE)

VINAYAKA AND:
BV
Digitally signed 1. SRI. B.N.GOVINDAIAH,
by VINAYAKA B V
Date: 2026.03.24
AGED MAJOR,
14:33:57 +0530 S/O LATE NANJAIAH,
GADDE BINDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN-573116.

               2.    SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
                     AGED MAJOR
                     W/O B.N.GOVINDAIAH,
                     GADDE BINDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                     KASABA HOBLI,
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC:15997
                                       RP No. 365 of 2025

HC-KAR

 CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
 HASSAN-573116.

1. SRI. B.G.HARIPRASAD,
   AGED MAJOR,
   S/O LATE NANJAIAH,
   GADDE BINDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
   KASABA HOBLI,
   CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
   HASSAN-573116.
   ...RESPONDENTS

   (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

   THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
   1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
   DATED 26.06.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RSA
   NO.1428/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
   AND EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

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

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

                     ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and

also the learned counsel for the respondents.

1. The present review petition is filed praying this

Court to review the order dated 26.06.2025 passed in

R.S.A.No.1428/2024 and to grant such other relief as deemed

fit in the circumstances of the case.

-3-

NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. The grounds which have been urged in this review

petition is that the impugned order has proceeded on the sole

basis that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity,

without adverting to the fact that the petitioner had selected

advocates, briefed them and paid their fees, while trusting

them to defend her case. However, they completely failed to

do so, and thereby a decree was passed against the petitioner.

For no fault of the review petitioner, the petitioner as an

innocent party, is suffering the consequence of her advocate's

default. It is also contended that this Hon'ble Court has time

and again held that an innocent party should not suffer merely

because of his advocate's default. The learned counsel also

brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of RAFIQ v. MUNSHILAL reported in

(1981) 2 SCC 788 and would vehemently contend that the

Trial Judge while passing the judgment made a reference that

no written statement was filed. But the fact is that an

application was filed advancing the case when the case was set

down for judgment and the same was rejected and hence,

making an observation that no written statement is filed is

erroneous. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that -4- NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

even if the defendant did not contest the matter, the Court has

to take note of other material available on record while

granting the relief. The learned counsel also vehemently

contend that the review petitioner came to know about an

order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, wherein comes to

the conclusion that the very grant made in favour of the

plaintiff itself is not in the eye of law and the same is not

sustainable and the same came to the knowledge of this review

petitioner subsequent to the disposal of this RSA. Hence, this

Court has to review the order passed by this Court.

1. The learned counsel for the review petitioner in

support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [BALRAJ TANEJA AND

ANOTHER v. SUNIL MADAN AND ANOTHER](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182831/) reported in

(1999) 8 SCC 396 and brought to the notice of this Court

paragraph No.25. The learned counsel also relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS v. VASAVI COOPERATIVE HOUSING

SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1298285/) reported in (2014) 2 SCC

269 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

case of [C.N. RAMAPPA GOWDA v. C.C. CHANDREGOWDA

(DEAD) BY LRS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157510091/). AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 5 SCC

265 and relied upon paragraph Nos.25 and 26, wherein the

Court held that the Court has to look into the plaint while

passing the judgment, if the defendant does not contest the

suit. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court

that in the plaint it is stated that no building is constructed and

suppressed the material. The learned counsel also contend

that fraud including suppression of material facts render a

decree obtained by such a fraud in nullity and referred the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [S.P.

CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS v. JAGANNATH

(DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113963352/) reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1

and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.5. The

learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of [MEGHMALA AND OTHERS v.

G.NARASIMHA REDDY AND OTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1329151/) reported in (2010) 8

SCC 383 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph

No.28.

-6-

NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. The learned counsel in support of his arguments

with regard to the scope of review is concerned under [Order 47

Rule 1 of CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/) in respect of discovery of an important fact,

brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of BOARD OF CONTROL FOR

CRICKET IN [INDIA AND ANOTHER v. NETAJI CRICKET

CLUB AND OTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1662742/) reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741 and so

also the judgment of this Court in the case of [BANGALORE

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE AND OTHERS v. P. ANJANAPPA AND OTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/473149/) reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1471 and also the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [MORAN MAR BASSELIOS

CATHOLICOS AND ANOTHER v. MOST REV. MAR POULOSE

ATHANASIUS AND OTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1864509/) reported in (1954) 2 SCC 42.

The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court

that the Trial Judge ought not to have disposed the restoration

of application filed by the petitioner and in support of his

contentions relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS. v.

PRITHVI RAJ SINGH reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3828 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

and also in the case of M.K. PRASAD v. P. ARUMUGAM reported in (2001) 6 SCC 176.

1. The learned counsel in support of his arguments

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated

08.10.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

No.21917/2025 and brought to the notice of this Court

paragraph No.2 with regard to procedural law is not to be a

tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an gate to justice.

It is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. The learned

counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph

Nos.3, 9 and 11 and so also paragraph Nos.12 and 13 and also

brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.24, wherein in

detail considered the factual matrix of the case. The learned

counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case

of LEELADEVI AND OTHERS v. NARAYAN AND OTHERS reported in MANU/KA/1228/2017 and brought to the notice

of this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.11, wherein

it is held that it is quite common that a party, who is in

advantageous position having obtained an interim order or who -8- NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

derives benefit in one way or the other due to delay or has a

weak case does not allow a suit to be decided.

1. The learned counsel referring these judgments

would vehemently contend that no opportunity was given to the

review petitioner and proceeded erroneously and even not

given an opportunity when the application was made and mere

posting of the judgment of the case itself is not a ground to

comes to a conclusion.

1. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents

would vehemently contend that this Court while passing an

order, in detail considered the case of the parties and in

paragraph No.12 taken note of whether it is a case for imposing

the cost and even for imposing the cost also, the appellant has

not made out any grounds to set aside the judgment of the

Trial Court as well as to reverse the judgment of the First

Appellate Court and detail discussion was made from paragraph

Nos.13 to 17. This Court also taken note of even order sheet

as well as an opportunity given and also the judgment in the

case of SANGRAM SINGH v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL reported

in AIR 1955 SC 425 as well as case of Rafiq (supra) was also -9- NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

discussed and comes to the conclusion that the appellant has

not made out the ground and it is not a case for admitting the

same and the Court cannot grant such relief on the whims and

fancies of the appellant. The appellant being a doctor who is

running a hospital in the very same building, cannot seek for

remand in the second appeal to set aside the matter and fix

time bound trial and give direction to dispose of the matter on

merits. This Court also taken note of document of partnership

dated 30.08.2017 as well as the sale deed came into existence

on the very next day i.e., on 31.08.2017 and what made to

have the sale deed on the very next day after entering into a

new partnership, which was registered before the Registrar of

Partnership, no explanation on the part of the appellant and the

same is discussed in paragraph No.17.

1. The learned counsel for the respondents in support

of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of MALLEESWARI v. K. SUGUNA AND

ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, wherein

discussion was made in paragraph Nos.14 and 17 with regard

to under what circumstances the Court can exercise the review

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

jurisdiction. The learned counsel also submits that no new

factor has arisen as the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner was challenged before this Court in the year

2024 itself and the same is stayed and the same is not relevant

in respect of this suit is concerned and suit is only in respect of

having obtained the sale deed fraudulently in respect of the

transaction and not in respect of the title is concerned and

hence, the same cannot be a ground. Other than urging this

ground, no other grounds are urged to invoke the review

jurisdiction.

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the review

petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents,

the issue involved between the parties is with regard to the

sale transaction is concerned. The plaintiffs/respondents had

filed a suit before the Trial Court in respect of the sale obtained

by the review petitioner herein and the Court comes to the

conclusion that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently in the

guise of obtaining the document of partnership deed which

came into existence on 30.08.2017 and on the very next day,

sale deed came into existence i.e., on 31.08.2017. But this

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

Court cannot consider the review petition as an appeal and

scope of review is very limited. If any error is apparent in the

order passed by this Court, this Court can exercise its review

jurisdiction. There is no dispute with regard to the principles

laid down in the judgments referred supra relied upon by the

learned counsel for the review petitioner with regard to even if

it is an exparte judgment, the Court has to look into the

material on record and pass an order. The learned counsel for

the review petitioner would submit that the Trial Court passed

an order in one paragraph and in nutshell not discussed the

case of the respondents herein. The learned counsel for the

review petitioner submits that while exercising the review

jurisdiction, if materials are brought on record and given an

opportunity, the result would be different. While exercising the

review jurisdiction, the Court has to take note of whether this

Court committed an error and whether there is a mistake

apparent on record.

1. Having considered the reasoning of this Court while

disposing of the second appeal, from paragraph Nos.13 to 17,

this Court taken note of the circumstances under which the suit

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

was filed and an opportunity was given and for a period of two

years from the date of appearance through an advocate,

written statement was not filed. For about almost 5 to 6

months even though time was given to file the written

statement, the same was not filed. Even though appearance

was made in the month of June, the written statement was not

filed. Subsequent to that also when the case was set down for

plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff was examined, but not filed the

written statement subsequently or contested the matter. When

the suit was heard and posted for judgment, at that juncture,

advancing the case an application is filed and hence, the Trial

Court rejected the same. No doubt, the learned counsel for the

review petitioner would submit that a reference was made that

no written statement was filed. But the fact is that when the

application was filed, the same was rejected and once it is

rejected, the Trial Court rightly mentioned that the written

statement was not filed. If the application was allowed and not

considered the written statement and not given an opportunity,

then there would have been a force in the contention of the

learned counsel for the review petitioner.

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. The other ground urged before this Court is that a

new material came to the knowledge of the review petitioner

subsequent to the disposal of RSA. No doubt, the learned

counsel for the review petitioner brought to the notice of this

Court the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the

same is not at the instance of the review petitioner and the

same is filed by other persons with regard to the grant is

concerned and the same is stayed by this Court in the year

2024 itself, wherein with regard to the grant is concerned,

question is made. But the issue before this Court is with regard

to the sale made in favour of the review petitioner and it is

alleged that the same is obtained fraudulently. Even though

there was an existence of partnership deed, on the very next

day, sale deed came into existence and same is fraudulently

obtained. When such being the case, the very ground urged by

the learned counsel for the review petitioner that a new factor

came to the knowledge of the review petitioner subsequent to

the disposal of RSA will not come to the aid of the review

petitioner and the same is in respect of grant is concerned.

Already matter is seized before this Court by filing a writ

petition and also stay is granted. When such being the case,

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

the same is not relevant for consideration of this review petition

as the Review Petitioner is also not disputing the title of the

respondent herein. Hence, I do not find any ground to review

the order passed by this Court and this Court in detail dealt

with the matter from paragraph Nos.13 to 17. All the grounds

have been urged before this Court in the second appeal itself

and this Court cannot sit and decide the same as an appeal if

there is no material before the Court that the order is error as

apparent on record.

1. No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondents

also relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Malleeswari (supra), wherein the Apex Court

reiterated the grounds of review in paragraph Nos.14, 15 and

1. The very contention of learned counsel for the review

petitioner is that the ground of discovery of new and important

matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated

that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was

not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the

party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. But

the same cannot be a discovery of new and important matter

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15997 RP No. 365 of 2025 HC-KAR

and the same is in respect of consideration of grant in favour of

the respondents herein and the same is also subject to the

result of the writ petition, which is pending before this Court

and the same will not come to the aid of the review petitioner

as there is no dispute with regard to the title and review

petitioner is also claiming right through the respondent herein

only. Hence, I do not find any ground to allow the review

petition and no such ground is made out to invoke [Order XLVII

Rule 1 of CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/) and hence, the review petition is dismissed.

SD/-

(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE

MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15