✦ Karnataka High Court

SMT. JUDITH MUTHAPPA v. SMT. BHARATHI UTHAPPA

CRP No. 809 of 2024V SRISHANANDA

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 809 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: SMT. JUDITH MUTHAPPA W/O. SRI. MUTHAPPA B.B. AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.28, GROUND FLOOR 6TH CROSS, CAD & MET LAYOUT RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE - 560 094 (BY SRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) …PETITIONER AND: SMT. BHARATHI UTHAPPA, W/O. LATE C.T. UTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.637, 1ST MAIN 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 038 SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka …RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.2637/2022 ON THE FILE OF LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY., DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER II RULE 2 OF CPC., FOR DISMISS THE SUIT AS ANOTHER SUIT IN OS NO.1171/2019. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49974 CRP No. 809 of 2024 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER The revision petition came to be filed on 22.11.2024. Till today, the office objections are not complied. Since office objections are not complied with, despite granting sufficient opportunities, the revision petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT-SG

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CRP No. 809 of 2024). ← Search more judgments