9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing but seeking to review the order of this Bench dated 11.01.2012. This Bench has no power to review of its order. - Found futile exercise & dismissed. - CA No. 1/2014 IN CP No. 10/2008 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2015 - SHRI KANTHI NARAHARI, J. For The Appellant : Shri. Anent Merathia, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri. Chethan Sagar, Advocate ORDER The present application is filed by. the petitioners praying this Bench to permit the applicants to substitute the land at Mantankurichi Village ad measuring 20.18 acres that stands as security with a personal guarantee till the amount, if any, is discharged by the applicants to the 2 nd respondent pursuant to the report of the commissioner, 2. It is stated that this Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent until the complete order of this Hon ble Bench is implemented; and once the said order was implemented, the said security shall stand released. However, the respondents herein have created several hurdles and are continuing to pose difficulties with the intention to not to allow implementation of the order of this Hon ble Bench. In view of the reasons he requested the Bench to allow the application as prayed for. 3. The 2 nd respondent filed a detailed counter to this application wherein it is stated that the application is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. The respondents also took the preliminary objections namely, (i) The relief sought in the present application. i.e to amend the order dated 11.01.2012 of this Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gard. it is relevant to state that the order was not appealed against and has attained finality. Consequently, the adjudication in the earlier proceedings is binding on the applicants and it is not open to the applicants to re-agitate the issue. Hence, this application is barred by res judicata. 4. It is further submitted that the order of the Karnataka High Court rejects the challenge by the applicants to the direction to create a security over the land and in view of this order this application is liable to be rejected. It is also stated that the present application seeking to substitute the lands that stand as security for repayment of monies to this respondent with a personal guarantee would greatly prejudice and jeopardize the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in imposing this condition Even otherwise it is only the interim arrangement till the amount ascertained as payable to the 2 nd respondent, is paid. 6. The finding of this Bench that the land in Mantankurichi Village ad- measuring 20.18 acres shall stand as security for discharge of the amount due to the 2 nd respondent is upheld by the Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka. Without going into the merits of the implementation of the order of this Bench dated 11.01.2012, I am of the view that the filing of this application and seeking permission of this Bench to substitute the land with a personal guarantee is nothing but seeking to review the order of this Bench dated 11.01.2012. This Bench has no power to review of its order. I do not see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
