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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26396

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SMT VIJAYA RAMU – Appellant
Versus
SRI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY – Respondent
MFA 6095 / 2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6095 OF 2024 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6055 OF 2024 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6200 OF 2024 IN MFA NO.6095/2024 BETWEEN:

SMT. VIJAYA RAMU W/O SRI. M. RAMU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.001, ROSHAN PALACE APARTMENT, NO.92/A, 1ST CROSS, KATRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY S/O.LATE SRI. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.615, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, BTS MARG, ARAKERE VILLAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076.

2 . SMT. PRATHIBHA W/O. SRI. C. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3 . SRI. P. TEJAS S/O.SRI. C. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.2 & 3 R/AT NO.29/1, 17TH 'E' MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, JEDARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 010.

…RESPONDENTS (BY MS. USHA NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. VAMSHI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 AND R-3;

SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED.23.07.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.787/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-12), REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

IN MFA NO.6055/2024 BETWEEN:

SRI. M. RAMU S/O LATE MUNISWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.001, ROSHAN PALACE APARTMENT, NO.92/A, 1ST CROSS, KATRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY S/O.LATE SRI. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.615, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, BTS MARG, ARAKERE VILLAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076.

2 . SMT. PRATHIBHA W/O. SRI. C. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3 . SRI. P. TEJAS S/O.SRI. C. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.2 & 3 R/AT NO.29/1, 17TH 'E' MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, JEDARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 010.

…RESPONDENTS (BY MS. USHA NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. VAMSHI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 AND R-3;

SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED.23.07.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.784/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-12), REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

IN MFA NO.6200/2024 BETWEEN:

SRI. M. RAMU S/O LATE MUNISWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.001, ROSHAN PALACE APARTMENT, NO.92/A, 1ST CROSS, KATRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY S/O.LATE SRI. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.615, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, BTS MARG, ARAKERE VILLAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076.

2 . SMT. PRATHIBHA W/O. SRI. C. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3 . SRI. P. TEJAS S/O.SRI. C. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.2 & 3 R/AT NO.29/1, 17TH 'E' MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, JEDARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 010.

…RESPONDENTS (BY MS. USHA NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. VAMSHI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 AND R-3;

SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED.23.07.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.783/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-12), REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.01.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 09.01.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 16.01.2025

CAV JUDGMENT

All these three appeals filed by the appellants under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC., for setting aside the order passed by the XVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for having rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top