SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
 
Smt Chandraprabha, D/o. Late Lakshmidevi, W/o. H.C. Shashikanth – Appellants
Versus
Sri K.L. Ramachandra SA, S/o. Late K Lakshman SA, (Since Died By Lrs)- Sri K. Nityananda, (S/o. SRI K L Ramachandra SA) and Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 5754 of 2025 (CPC)
Decided On : 05-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Smt. Kalpana C., Advocate.

The court dismissed the appeal for not being maintainable under procedural rules, emphasizing the requirement for proper petitions to be filed in appropriate courts.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order 1 Rule 10 - Application for impleadment of proposed defendants - Appeal against rejection of application deemed not maintainable, with directions for appropriate petition before competent Court. (Para 4)

(B) Maintainability - The court addressed concerns regarding the appeal's maintainability as per the established legal framework, upholding procedural rules. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from an application to implead proposed defendants which was rejected, leading to the present appeal's dismissal.

Findings of Court:
The appeal is not maintainable as it does not conform to procedural norms, emphasizing the necessity for appropriate petitions in competent courts.

Issues: The key issue was whether the rejection of the impleadment application warranted the appeal's maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appeal was appropriately dismissed based on procedural objections, highlighting the need to follow the proper legal channels for relief.

Result: Appeal dismissed, liberty to file appropriate petition before competent Court.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The impugned order is rejection of application on I.A.No.33, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, to implead the proposed defendants. The office has rightly raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to file appropriate petition before the appropriate Court. Liberty is reserved as such.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top