PARASHURAM YELLAPPA POTE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides on merits in this review petition. The eight interlocutory applications are incidental because they really deal with aspects such as condonation of delay, setting aside abatement, bringing on record the legal representatives etc. The review petition itself seeks a revision of a common order passed by this court on 11th February, 1999 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 21995 of 1990. That writ petition challenged an order of the Tribunal dated 2-9-1976. Effectively, the present writ petition seeks to reopen a litigation that had concluded with the Tribunal's order in the year 1976 and the solitary ground given is that the landowner had died shortly before that order was pronounced and technically the legal representatives had not been brought on record. When the writ petition was disposed of in the year 1999, the Court took into consideration certain aspects, the first of them being that the case had been decided on merits and if the death had taken place at some time before the order was passed, that it has not in any way affected the decision on merits. More importantly, during the interim period of 23 years, various changes had taken place including the fact that some portions of the lands had been alienated. The writ petition itself had become infructuous for the simple reason that the earlier order had assumed a stage of finality to the extent of becoming irreversible. That situation remains unchanged even as of today. The difficulties for the review petitioners have got further compounded because of the fact that there are abnormal delays in the filing of this review petition and Mr. Shastry, who appears on behalf of the contesting respondents has vehemently opposed any reopening of this old litigation because he submits that the petitioners before me were aware of the order passed by the High Court at least one year before the review petition was filed. This had happened in the course of hearing of O. S. No. 499 of 1995 where the copy of this Court's order was relied upon by his clients.

(2.) THERE is a basic principle in law that before a Court passes any orders, that it is necessary to take into consideration the consequences of those orders and where the order itself would be totally infructuous, such an order ought not to be passed. I have already indicated that the earlier orders have become irreversible for a variety of reasons and that consequently, this is the main ground on which no review, even assuming the Court were to condone the delay and set aside the abatement, is neither permissible nor can it serve any useful purpose. Having regard to this position, the review petition fails and stands dismissed. The eight inter locutory applications also fail and stand dismissed.