In this regular second appeal, the High Court confirmed the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal along with the petition for condonation of delay.
Dismissal of regular second appeal and petition for condonation of delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
R.S.A.No.64/2011 A/w Misc.Cvl.No.6765/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.64/2011 A/W MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL NO.6765/2011
BETWEEN :
SRI K RAJAGOPAL S/O LATE K KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS DOOR NO.290 (NEW NO.CH 39) 13TH MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE-560 009 … COMMON APPELLANT
(BY SRI SOURABH R K FOR SRI G K V MURTHY AND SRI P E UMESH, ADVOCATES )
AND :
SMT S K SUNANDA W/O SRI H S NARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS D.NO.CH-39, 5TH MAIN SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE-560 009 … COMMON RESPONDENT
RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.9.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1200/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 9.3.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.729/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), MYSORE.
2
R.S.A.No.64/2011 A/w Misc.Cvl.No.6765/2011
MISC.CVL.NO.6765/11 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 5 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. RSA AND MISC.CVL. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
Heard. This second appeal is by the plaintiff. Dismissal of the suit (filed for grant of permanent injunction) by the trial court is confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. Concurrent findings by both the Courts. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. No ground to admit the appeal. Hence, no purpose would be served by ordering notice on Misc.Cvl.No.6765/2011 filed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, both Misc.Cvl.No.6765/2011 and the appeal stand dismissed. However, this judgment will not come in the way of the appellant/plaintiff in pursuing the matter before the jurisdictional local
3
R.S.A.No.64/2011 A/w Misc.Cvl.No.6765/2011
planning authority in accordance with law.
Appeal dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
hkh/MN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises in second appeal regarding dismissal of suit for permanent injunction.
Whether delay in filing appeal under Section 5 of Limitation Act can be condoned for the purpose of determination.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI K RAJAGOPAL S/O LATE K KRISHNAPPA
SMT S K SUNANDA W/O SRI H S NARAYANA SETTY
H.G.RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
