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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SUMITHRAMMA – Appellant
Versus
NARAYANAPPA – Respondent


The captioned second appeal is filed by plaintiffs

feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree of Courts below

in summarily non-suiting plaintiffs by invoking under Order

23 Rule 3A of CPC.,

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. Plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration and

injunction in O.S.No.343/2009.

4. The defendants on receipt of summons tendered

appearance and filed written statement and contended that

the present suit is not at all maintainable and therefore,

filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC.,

seeking to dismiss the suit as not maintainable. Trial Court

has allowed the application and dismissed the suit. Trial

Court initially rejected this application. It appears that

defendants filed a review application. Trial Court while

considering the application has not only reviewed its order

but consequently, dismissed the suit.

5

5. Feeling aggrieved by the decree, plaintiffs

preferred

an

appeal

before

Appellate

Court

in

R.A.No.45/2014. The Appellate Court has also proceeded

to dismiss the appeal on the ground that an appeal under

Section 96 of CPC., is not maintainable against the order

pa

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top