Dismissed

Sri. Prasad G v. Vs Smt. Naveena Kumari

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2021RFA/418/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that maintaining two regular first appeals simultaneously by the appellant was an improper use of procedural law causing inconvenience. The court allowed a memo to withdraw the current appeal subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 500 to the Legal Services Committee.

What did the court decide?

Memo dated 20.01.2021 for withdrawal of appeal allowed with a cost of Rs. 500 payable to Legal Services Committee.

Sri. Prasad G v Vs Smt. Naveena Kumari — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.418 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI PRASAD G.V. S/O G. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT #213, SAISADAN RAMA FARM COMPOUND LAKSHMIPURA VIDYARANAYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 097.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. NAVEENA KUMARI W/O SRI M. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT LAKSHIMPURA YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 097.

¶12

ANJANEYA S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA

¶13

RFA No.418/2018

¶14

¶15

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.10/179, BLOCK 23 PAPER TOWN BHADRAVATHI-577 302.

¶16

MANJUNATH S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT ABBIGERE YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU-560 090.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2016 PASSED IN EX.NO.1589/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-8), BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 58 R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC, ETC.

¶19

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant is appearing

¶22

through video conference and justifies the action of filing RFA 700/2017 during the pendency of the present appeal

¶23

RFA No.418/2018 3

¶24

and submits that he has not suppressed any fact since he has disclosed about the pendency of the present RFA in its earlier No. MFA 8524/2016 before this Court. Learned counsel submits that since there was an error in mentioning a provision of law, he decided to file a fresh Regular First Appeal. As such, he has filed the present RFA 700/2017.

¶25

2. Admittedly, both these Regular First Appeals

¶26

are filed challenging the very same impugned order. Even according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the earlier challenge to the impugned order was through an MFA 8524/2016 which subsequently was re-numbered as RFA 418/2018. In the meantime, even according to the present appellant, he filed one more Regular First Appeal against the same impugned order bearing No. RFA 700/2017. Thus, even after filing RFA 700/2017, for some time both Regular First Appeals were simultaneously pending in this Court.

¶27

RFA No.418/2018

¶28

¶29

3. The appellant was expected to withdraw the

¶30

present Regular First Appeal if he was not willing to continue with the present Regular First Appeal and intended to file a fresh Regular First Appeal, reserving liberty to file a fresh Regular First Appeal. Accordingly thereafter he could have proceeded to file RFA 700/2017. However, by maintaining both the Regular First Appeals simultaneously for consideration of the Court for some time, he has caused inconvenience to the Court which also could be termed as improper use of the procedural law to some extent. Therefore, I am of the view that the memo dated 20.01.2021 for withdrawal of the present appeal be allowed but however, with a cost.

¶31

Accordingly, the said memo dated 20.01.2021 is allowed with a cost of `500/- payable to the Legal Services Committee of this Court by the appellant within a week from today and filing a compliance memo along with receipt within eight days from today. Subject to the payment of

¶32

RFA No.418/2018

¶33

¶34

the cost, present RFA 418/2018 stands dismissed as not pressed.

¶35

A copy of this order be also placed in RFA 700/2017

¶36

and be brought to the notice of the Court.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

sac*

Sri. Prasad G v. Vs Smt. Naveena Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prasad G v. Vs Smt. Naveena Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H Benakappa Vs Sri H H Basavarajappa

Imthiyaz Vs Syed Fayaz

Bhuvaneshwari Vs L Pratheep

Mohammed Mohiddin Khan Vs Kishore M Patel

Sri. Aaftab Pasha Vs Smt. Farzana Savar

Sri C R Seetharama Sharma Vs Smt Mangala S Sharma