Krishna S Dixit, J
1. The subject Writ Petition No.51246/2019 (GM-CPC) was disposed off by this court by final judgement dated 22.03.2021. Relief was granted to the review petitioners i.e., Respondents in the Writ Petition. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
“(i) Petitioners shall close all the windows on the western wall permanently & irretrievably, and further remove the chajja that protrudes into the land of the respondent-Decree Holder within two weeks;
(ii) Petitioners shall collectively pay a sum of Rupees one lakh (Rs.1,00,000/-) only to the first respondent- Decree Holder within a period of two weeks;
(iii) Petitioners shall file the photograph and an affidavit in the Registry of this Court to the effect that the aforesaid directions (i) & (ii) above are complied within an outer limit of three weeks from this day;
(iv) If petitioners fail to comply with the directions (i) to (iii) supra, the impugned order shall revive on its own, and the Executing court shall enforce the same with full police force forthwith and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court before the onset of Summer Vacation- 201; in addition to that, petitioner shall be liable to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- (rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the respondent-Decree Holder;
(v) Petitioner or any person claiming under them, at any time hereafter shall not meddle with the wall now retained nor shall they do anything that will cause disturbance to the enjoyment of the property by the respondent-Decree Holder in his own way;
(vi) Petitioners further undertake that in future if they take up any construction, they shall be leaving at least two feet space from the property of the respondent – Decree Holder.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that there is error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as that his client has obtained a Civil Court decree in his favour and whatever fruits that should eventually fall into his hands by the said decree have been taken away by the order now put in review. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the writ petition who suffered the judgement & decree in question makes submission in justification of the order contending that review jurisdiction as enacted under Order XLVII Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 are made applicable to the writ proceedings by virtue of Rule 39 of Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 vide judgment in W.A.No.4312/2017 between M/S.NARIA ESTATES RURAL INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATIONPVT. LTD., vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off on 05.07.2024. The said Rule 39 reads as under:
“Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, etc.- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or Article 227 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules”.
Therefore it is not a case of error apparent on the face of record.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the respondents herein and therefore decline indulgence in the matter. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order whereby the writ petition is disposed off, the challenge has to be laid thereto elsewhere. In that connection all contentions are kept open.
Review petition is disposed off accordingly, Costs having been made easy.
