IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 24th day of July, 2015 Present THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINEET SARAN & THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S CHAUHAN Review Petition 287 / 2015 in WP (HC) 234 / 2014 Between 1 Smt Katamma, 65 yrs W/o Muniraju @ Haddugadu R/a # 1, in Sy.No.135 & 136 of Binnamangala Village Old Madras Road, Indiranagar Bangalore 2 Sri M B Ramu, 64 yrs S/o late M B Muniyappa R/a # 50/1, Upper Pipe Line Seshadripuram, Bangalore 20 Petitioners (By Sri Bryen for Sri M Manjunath, Adv.) And 1 Commissioner of Police Infantry Road, Bangalore 2 Station House Officer Indiranagar Police Station Bangalore 38 3 Sri N Sampath Kumar, 53 yrs S/o late V Narasimhulu R/a # 48, Near Ganesh Temple 2 Hutting Colony, Indiranagar I Stage Bangalore 38 4 Sri D Ramaraju, 55 yrs S/o late Doddamarappa R/a # 19/3, New Binnamangala Old Madras Road, Bangalore 5 Sri M Ravikumar, 43 yrs S/o late M Muniraju R/a # 30, 3 rd Cross, V R Road Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore 6 Sri M Chandrashekar, 40 yrs S/o late M Muniraju R/a # 8/9, Laxmi Narasimha Nilaya Laxmi Tent Road, 8 th Cross Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore 7 Sri M Muralidhara, 39 yrs S/o late M Muniraju R/a # 16, Near Mother Theresa School Behind Aiyappa Nagar Layout Maragundana Halli Main Road (Anandapura), Varanasi Jinka Thimmana Halli Village Bangalore 8 Sri Umashankar S/o Doddamarappa 52 yrs, R/a # 2, Subramanya Temple Street Old Byapanahalli, Bangalore 33 9 Sri R Shekar @ Sheiki, 54 yrs S/o late Rajappa, R/a # 495, TBW Near Park, 15 th Cross, Indiranagar II Stage, Bangalore 38 10 Smart Investment & Holdings # 212, Copper Arch, 83, Infantry Road Bangalore - by Partners Mr Irshad Ahmed & Mr Keshav R 3 11 Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Br. Off. At: III Floor, RMZ Centennian Campus B, # 8 B, Kundalahalli Main Road Bangalore - by Sandeep Singh Dhindsa 12 Sri A S Vishnu Bharath S/o Satyanarayan R/a # 450, 7 th Main, 4 th Block Jayanagar, Bangalore 11 13 Smt Bhavana Bharath W/o Chethan Bharath R/a # 450, 7 th Main, 4 th Block, Jayanagar Bangalore 11 14 PNB Housing Finance Ltd # 690, 39 th Cross, 16 th Main Jayanagar 4 th Block, Bangalore 41 By its Manager 15 Sri K V Shiva Kumar M/s Rajatha Jewelers & Developers R/a # 3/1, Church Road Opp: Madhava Rao Circle Krishna Rao Park, Basavanagudi Bangalore 4 16 Sri Praveen Kumar, 45 yrs S/o K K Diwarakaran (Brother of late Pradeep Diwan) R/a # 99, I Block, II Main, 8 th Cross BEL Layout, Vidyaranyapura Bangalore 17 Sri V Shankar (Ex Chairman of NGEF) S/o Venugopal, 51 yrs R/a # 82, 6 th Cross, 13 th Main HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 38 18 District Registrar Registration & Stamps Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore 4 19 Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar Bangalore 20 Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar Bangalore 21 Sub-Registrar, Halasoor Bangalore 8 Respondents Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rules 1 & 2 r/w S.114, CPC praying to review the order dated 10.3.2015 in WP (HC) 234/2014. The Petition coming on for Admission this day, Vineet Saran J., made the following: ORDER This is a petition filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order dated 10.3.2015 passed in the writ petition whereby the petition has been dismissed with liberty that if any of the respondents, in violation of the court direction, has executed the sale deed, it is for the petitioners to avail other remedies open to them. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking review of the said order is that the order which was dictated in the open court, this Court had granted liberty to petitioners to enable them to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents who had deliberately and knowingly violated certain orders of the court passed in 5 some earlier writ petition, which was not there in the final order. It is also stated that the writ petition ought to have been actually disposed of and not dismissed by this Court by order dated 10.3.2015. Having heard Sri Bryen, learned counsel appearing for review petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, what we find is that the court has, in fact, given liberty to the petitioners to avail such remedy available to them in law, if there is violation of any court directions. The same would include filing of a contempt petition, if permissible in law. In fact, it is not for the Court to advise or grant permission to the petitioners for filing contempt petition. If any orders of this Court passed in some other writ petition have been violated by any person, it is always open to the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the court, whereafter the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. This Court cannot and should not pass any directions or make any observations with regard to granting liberty to a party to file contempt proceedings against any other person or party. As far as the question of the writ petition having been dismissed by the said order dated 10.3.2015 is concerned, what we find is that since liberty has already been given by the order dated 10.3.2015 to the 6 petitioners to avail such other remedy available to them in law for proceeding against the persons who have committed any wrong or allegedly violated the orders or directions of this Court, in stead of the petition being dismissed, we provide that the said writ petition may be treated as ‘disposed of ’ in stead of ‘dismissed’ and the order dated 10.3.2015 shall stand modified accordingly. Review petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Judge Sd/- Judge An .