Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. CHANDRASHEKARA REVIEW PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SRI JEEVAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE G.B. NAGA VARMA, RAJKAMAL THEATER, SRIRAM PETE, MYSORE CITY-570023 NOW R/AT NO.20, JEEVANA, INDIRANAGAR, NEW EXTENSION, NEAR RACE COURE CIRCLE, MYSORE-570023 (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
SMT SHASHIKALA CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O SRI CHANDRAIAH, R/AT NO.15, MARUTHI LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094
SMT.RAJINI VARMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O SRI VEERA VARMA, R/AT NELLIKAR,
2 KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 124
SMT.VANITHA RATHNA RAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O SRI RATHNA RJA, R/AT KOPPA TOWN AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 134
SMT. ARCHANA PRABHATH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O SRI N. PRABHATH, R/AT SRINIVASA K.D. COLLEGE ROAD, KARKALA TWON, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104
SMT. G.N.SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, W/O LATE G.V.NAGAVARMA, R/AT SRINIVASA, K.D.KINI COMPOUND, S.B.COLLEGE ROAD, KARKALA TOWN, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104
SI G.N.RATHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE G.B. NAGAVARMA, RATHAN ENTERPRISES, THEERTHANKARA ROAD, NEAR SANGAM THEATER, MYSORE CITY-570 001
SRI G.N.CHANDRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE G.B.NAGAVARMA, RATHAN ENTERPRISES, THEERTHANKARA ROAD, NEAR SANGAM THEATER, MYSORE CITY-570 001
SRI.G.N.JWALAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE G.B. NAGAVARMA, R/AT NO.42/5, SHALIVAHANA ROAD, NAZARBAD, MYSORE-570 010 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANDRAIAH, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3 & R5; SRI K.S. CHANDRAKANTH GOWDA, ADV., FOR R8; R4-SERVED; R6 & R7-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V.O. DTD.13.04.2015)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 10/09/2013 PASSED IN WP NO. 38459/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
The order dated 10.09.2013 passed by this Court is sought to be reviewed. The matter has been placed before this Court Hall in the light of retirement
4 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath, who has passed the order dated 10.09.2013.
Petitioner has been directed to submit the income tax returns of Rajkamal Theater, Mysore for the period from 1997-98 and 2011-2012 by the learned Civil Judge in FDP No.8/2009 pending on the file of Small Causes Court at Mysuru. This order, passed under Order-14 Rule-11 of CPC has been called in question before this Court in WP No.38459/2012 (GM-CPC).
Sri Sampat Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the very suit filed in OS NO.174/1992 was in respect of income of the Rajkamal Theater for the period upto 01.05.1997, this order could not have been affirmed by this Court. 5. Admittedly, the said suit was for partition and separate possession of 1/8th share relating to Schedule-B property and 1/9th share in schedule in
5 Schedule C and D property. The Rajkamal Theatre is mentioned as schedule-A property. The plaintiff is entitled for income relating to his share after deducting all expenditure incurred for running the picture.
Attention of this Court is drawn to the order passed in CRP No.29/1995 filed by the same petitioner before this Court which was disposed of on 30.05.1997. In the said order, this Court has observed as follows: “It is not in dispute that the lease period in respect of the said talkies has come to and end during pendency of this revision petition and it has expired on 01.05.1997. The necessary conclusion therefore is that the lease held right in the respect of the said talkies no longer exists and if at all there were to be a lease, there should be a new contract to be entered into between parties on such terms and conditions as they deem fit.”
6 7. Anyhow, in the same order, the parties have been granted liberty to seek any such interim relief for which they should be entitled under law, by moving the application before trial Court.
Learned Judge has taken note of the liberty given by this Court by disposing of this CRP. The decree passed is one for partition and separate possession of the properties mentioned in Schedule A & B. Therefore, order confirmed by this Court does not require any modification. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sbs*