G. NAGARAJ Vs. PADMASHREE PAPER MART AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. C.K. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for review petitioner, Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri. D.G. Chinnappa Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

(2.) Petitioner is seeking for review of order passed in R.F.A. No. 779/2014 by this court on 10.07.2014 whereunder Judgment and decree passed by Civil Court, Bangalore in O.S.4012/2007 dated 26.03.2014 decreeing the suit came to be modified by virtue of a compromise petition filed by the parties and accordingly appeal came to be disposed of on 10.07.2014 recording the said compromise petition. It is this Judgment and decree passed on a compromise petition filed by parties which is sought for review by the review petitioner contending inter alia that he has filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the 2nd respondent herein in O.S.4944/2008 and same is pending and in said suit an interlocutory application I.A.2 had been filed by him for a direction to the tenants including the 1st respondent herein to deposit the arrears of rent and on account of trial court having deleted the tenants as not being proper and necessary parties in suit, I.A.2 also came to be rejected and being aggrieved by same, review petitioner had approached this court in W.P.8563/2010 and order passed by trial court came to be set aside and I.A.2 was referred back to the court below for fresh consideration and I.A.5 filed by 1st defendant i.e., 2nd respondent herein also came to be remitted back to the trial court. During the pendency of said writ petition as well as suit for partition, 2nd respondent herein filed a suit for ejectment against 1st respondent herein in O.S.4012/2007 which came to be decreed by Judgment and decree dated 26.03.2014 and against said Judgment and decree RFA 779/2014 came to be filed by 1st respondent which came to be disposed of by this court after recording compromise as observed herein above and suppressing the fact of partition suit pending 2nd respondent had obtained a decree from this court and as such it has to be reviewed.

(3.) It is the grievance of Sri. C.K. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for review petitioner 2nd respondent herein had suppressed the fact of partition suit namely O.S.4944/2008 pending before jurisdictional court in which the dispute relating to entitlement of collection of rent was also being adjudicated and right of review petitioner to seek for deposit of rent was also being adjudicated by jurisdictional court and as such the Judgment and decree passed by this court is without notice to the present review petitioner and on account of factum of partition suit being pending and so also the claim for entitlement of receiving the rent being under dispute and same having been suppressed by 2nd respondent herein order obtained by respondents is liable to be reviewed as it amounts to error apparent on the face of the record and as such Judgment and decree requires to be reviewed. Hence, he prays for allowing the review petition.