OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF MARCH v. SRINATH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rr. 1, 1(r), 2
Judgment
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4643 OF 2018 (CPC) …APPELLANT BETWEEN: MRS. BASANTHI RANI PAUL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O MR. R.N.PAUL, R/AT NO. 76, 2ND CROSS, DINNUR AJJAPPA BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALURU NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 032. (BY SRI. CHANDRAIAH H. S., ADVOCATE) AND:
MR. NINGANA GOWDA HOSAMANI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O ADIVEPPA GOWDA HOSAMANI, NO.50, 1ST STAGE, POSTAL COLONY, SANJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050.
MR. P.C.CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE P CHANDRASEKESHAVAPPA, NO.106, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHANAGAR, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8951 MFA No. 4643 of 2018 WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010.
MR. C V. SRINATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O OF MR. V.N.CHOWDAPPA, NO.148, 9TH MAIN ROAD, KURUBARAHALLI, NEAR CANARA SCHOOL, J.C.NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 086.
MRS. ZEENATHUNISA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O OF MR. RAFIQUE AHMED, NO. 227, 14TH MAIN ROAD, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560 054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR CR/R1) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
31.05.2018, PASSED ON IA.1 IN O.S. NO.406/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15), BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA.1, FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8951 MFA No. 4643 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for appellant filed a memo stating that the suit came to be decreed on 01.04.2023. Hence, the appeal has become infructuous.
2. The memo is placed on record.
Operative part
3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and it is disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — rr. 1, 1(r), 2.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.