Sri Kanthilal v. Sri P Prashanth
Case brief
What is this about?
The Karnataka High Court rejected an appeal filed under Section 96 CPC against an order dismissing a Section 151 petition challenging a decree as void. The Court held the impugned order was not a decree, as it did not conclusively determine the parties' rights, and is not maintainable under Section 96 CPC.
What did the court decide?
The appeal stands returned for presentation before the appropriate Court within three weeks from the date of the order.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A.No.543 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SRI KANTHILAL AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI CHAMPALAL, RESIDING AT NO.459, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE -560003
..APPELLANT
(BY SRI.PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
- 1 . SRI P PRASHANTH S/O. PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.14, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE -560026
- 2 . SRI PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, RESIDING AT: NO.14, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE- 560026
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 96 of CPC lies against an order rejecting a Section 151 petition as maintainable.
Whether an order rejecting a petition to declare a judgment and decree null and void ab-initio constitutes a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
SRI KANTHILAL
- respondent
SRI P PRASHANTH
- respondent
SRI PURUSHOTHAM
- respondent
SMT B.P KOMALA DEVI
- respondent
SRI P. DAYANAND
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- RFA/543/2014
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court