DHARWAD BENCH v. TQ: KUSHTAGI
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable with the observations as discussed above. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21
Judgment
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100146 OF 2025 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BASANAGOUDA S/O PARTHAGOUDA SIRUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDDALAGUNDI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPALA-583 277.
2. SRI. HANAMANGOUDA S/O PARTHAGOUDA SIRUR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDDALAGUNDI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPALA-583 277.
3. SRI. MAHANTESH S/O BASANAGOUDA KUNCHNUR SHIRUR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDDALAGUNDI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPALA-583 277. (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. RENUKA W/O GURUMALLANAGOUDA MUDDEBIHAL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: KESARABHAVI, TQ: HUNAGUNDA, DIST: KOPPALA-583 277.
SMT. SANGAMMA W/O PARTHAGOUDA SIRUR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: MUDDALAGUNDI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPALA-583 277. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH … APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8183 RFA No. 100146 of 2025 HC-KAR
SMT. DEVAMMA D/O BASANAGOUDA KUNCHNUR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HUNUR, AT POST: MUDDALAGUNDI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPALA-583 277. … RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.105/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KUSHTAGI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The office objection raised at Sl.No.1 is regarding maintainability of appeal. Since the value of subject matter of the appeal is below Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, office has raised objection at Sl.No.1 regarding maintainability of appeal.
2. Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Code Act, 1964, reads as under:
19. Appeals from [Senior Civil Judge].- Appeals from the decrees and orders passed by a [Senior Civil Judge] in original suits and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8183 RFA No. 100146 of 2025 HC-KAR proceedings of a civil nature, shall when such appeals are allowed by law, lie.- (1) to the District Court, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit or proceeding [does not exceed ten lakh rupees]; (2) to the High Court, in other cases.
3. The appeal from the Court of Civil Judge is maintainable before the District Court, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit or proceeding does not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-. It means when the value of subject matter of the appeal is below Rs.10,00,000/-, the appeal lies before the District Court. Therefore, the present appeal lies before the District Court, because of valuation of subject matter of the present appeal is below Rs.10,00,000/-.
Therefore, the office objection raised at Sl.No.1 is upheld. Liberty is reserved to prefer appeal before the District Court. The time spent before this Court in prosecuting this appeal shall be excluded as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8183 RFA No. 100146 of 2025 HC-KAR
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable with the observations as discussed above. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21
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.