MR. S. SHIVASWAMY v. MR. NINGANA GOWDA HOSAMANI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, the above appeal is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rr. 1, 1(r), 2
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4646 OF 2018 (CPC) …APPELLANT BETWEEN:
1. MR. S. SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SON OF SOMBAIAH, R/AT NO. 99, 6TH "B" CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BANGALORE-560 097. (BY SRI. CHANDRAIAH H S.,ADVOCATE) AND:
MR. NINGANA GOWDA HOSAMANI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SON OF ADIVEPPA GOWDA HOSAMANI, NO.50, 1ST STAGE, POSTAL COLONY, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 050.
MR. P. C. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SON OF LATE P. CHANDRASEKESHAVAPPA, NO.106, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHANAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE-560 010.
MR. C. V. SRINATH, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:29446 MFA No. 4646 of 2018 HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SON OF MR. V. N. CHOWDAPPA, NO. 148, 9TH MAIN ROAD, KURUBARAHALLI, NEAR CANARA SCHOOL, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST, BANGALORE-560 086.
MRS. ZEENATHUNISA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. RAFIQUE AHMED, NO.227, 14TH MAIN ROAD, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. UDITA RAMESH FOR C/R1.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2018, PASSED ON IA.1 IN O.S. NO.403/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS (CCH-15), BENGALURU, JUDGE REJECTING THE IA.1, FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsels for both parties submits that, this appeal may be dismissed as the same has become infructuous. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29446 MFA No. 4646 of 2018 HC-KAR
2. Submission is taken on record.
Operative part
3. Therefore, the above appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE CH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the above appeal is dismissed as
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.