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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 438712

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
UNION BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
SMT P SHASHIREKHA – Respondent
MFA 9019/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9019 OF 2025(CPC)

BETWEEN:

UNION BANK OF INDIA

ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK,

HAVING THEIR BRANCH AT ATTIBELE ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562107

REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF MANAGER

…APPELLANT

(BY SMT. LAKSHMI K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT P SHASHIREKHA

D/O LATE PILLAPPA

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

2. SRI PILLAPPA

SINCE DEAD BY LR AND WIFE

Digitally signed SMT DHANALAKSHMI

by

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

PADMASHRE E

SHEKHAR DESAI

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.708,

Location: High

Court Of KOTE STREET, ATTIBELE,

Karnatka ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK

3. SRI V DEVARAJ

S/O VEMANNA

AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS

VEMANNA NILAYA,

SHAKAMBARI LAYOUT,

ATTIEBELE, ANEKAL TALUK,

BENGALURU - 562107.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KEMPARAJU B.G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.21.08.2025 PASSED IN COMMERCIAL MIS. PETITION NO. 9/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/O.IX RULE 9 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The office has raised objection regarding maintainability of the appeal against the order passed by the Commercial Court.

2. This Court has issued Circular No.R(J) 65C/2017 dated

30.10.2017 that against the order passed by the Commercial courts, commercial appeals be maintainable before the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, in view of this, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

4. However, liberty is reserved to file a fresh appeal before the Division Bench as per the above said Circular.

5. The appellant is entitled for the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 excluding the period spent before this Court by filing the appeal.

6. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the order. From the date of receipt of the copy of this order enclosed within two days, the appellant is given liberty to file the appeal.

SD/-

(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

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