The parties filed an MSA against a judgment allowing an appeal under a Civil Suit. The appellant failed to file the appeal within the peremptory time limit ordered by the Court, resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution.
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.
MSA NO.39/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
M.S.A. NO.39/2017
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE RESIDING AT SAMPIGEHALLI VILLAGE, BANNERGHATTA DHAKALE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 063.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MSA NO.39/2017
2
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT BYRAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNERAGHATTA DHAKALE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
… RESPONDENTS
THIS MSA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (u) OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.3.2017 PASSED IN RA NO.5043/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4.8.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.VII IN OS NO.745/07 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ANEKAL AND ALLOWING THE IA NO.VII FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS MSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In view of the peremptory order dated 15.03.2021, the
appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
KTY
Siddanna S/o Late NANDISHAPPA
S. Jagadeesh S/o Siddanna
S. Shashikumar S/o Siddanna
S. Rajashekar S/o Siddanna
Basavaraju S/o Siddanna
Smt. Manjula D/o Siddanna
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
