Dismissed

Sri N Muthurayappa v. Smt N C Muniyamma

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2022MFA/6768/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In MFA Nos. 6768/2021 and 6772/2021, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed applications for condonation of delay, totaling 1232 days. The court held the appellant slept over the matter and found no good ground for condonation, dismissing both appeals.

What did the court decide?

Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were dismissed. Consequently, both first appeals (MFA Nos. 6768/2021 and 6772/2021) were dismissed.

Sri N Muthurayappa Vs Smt N C Muniyamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

MFA NO.6768 OF 2021 (CPC) C/W MFA NO.6772 OF 2021 (CPC)

¶6

In MFA No.6768/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri N.Muthurayappa, S/o Late Nagappa, Aged about 72 years, Residing at 316, 3^rd Cross, 2^nd Block, 3^rd Phase, 3^rd Stage, Banashankari, Bengaluru-560085.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Smt. Thanuja M.V., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Smt. N.C.Muniyamma, W/o Sri B.V.Thammaiah, Aged about 52 years, R/at No.609, Dasappanapalya, Chikkabanavara Post, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-560090.

¶13

Smt. Ammayamma, W/o Late Chikkakempaiah, Aged about 75 years, R/at Thimmasandra, Tarahunise Post, Jala Hobli,

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-562157.

¶16

Sri N.C.Ramaiah, S/o Late Chikkakempaiah, Aged about 56 years, R/at Nagadasanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-560064.

¶17

Smt. Akkamma, W/o Sri Eranna, Aged about 54 years, R/at Thimmasandra, Tarahunise Post, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-562157.

¶18

Smt. Rathnamma, W/o Sri B.M.Gopal, Aged about 50 years, R/at No.169/3, I Main Road, Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru-560032.

¶19

Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o Sri Appaji, Aged about 42 years, R/at Thimmasandra, Tarahunise Post, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-562157.

¶20

Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o Sri N.C.Ramaiah, Aged about 45 years,

¶21

Sri N.R.Aravinda, S/o Sri N.C.Ramaiah, Aged about 30 years,

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

Sri N.R.Girisha, S/o Sri N.C.Ramaiah, Aged about 28 years,

¶24

Sri N.R.Chandra, S/o Sri N.C.Ramaiah, Aged about 26 years,

¶25

Sl.No.7 to 10 are R/at Nagadasanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-560064.

¶26

…Respondents

¶27

(By Sri M.Ravikumar, Advocate for Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, Advocate for R1)

¶28

This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 06.10.2016 passed on I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.652/2014 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, allowing I.A.No.IV filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶29

In MFA No.6772/2021

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

Sri N.Muthurayappa, S/o Late Nagappa, Aged about 72 years, Residing at 316, 3^rd Cross, 2^nd Block, 3^rd Phase, 3^rd Stage, Banashankari, Bengaluru-560085.

¶32

…Appellant

¶33

(By Smt. Thanuja M.V., Advocate)

¶34

:: 4 ::

¶35

AND:

¶36

Smt. N.C.Muniyamma, W/o Sri B.V.Thammaiah, Aged about 52 years, R/at No.609, Dasappanapalya, Chikkabanavara Post, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-560090.

¶37

Smt. Ammayamma, W/o Late Chikkakempaiah, Aged about 75 years, R/at Thimmasandra, Tarahunise Post, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-562157.

¶38

Sri N.C.Ramaiah, S/o Late Chikkakempaiah, Aged about 56 years, R/at Nagadasanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-560064.

¶39

Smt. Akkamma, W/o Sri Eranna, Aged about 54 years, R/at Thimmasandra, Tarahunise Post, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-562157.

¶40

Smt. Rathnamma, W/o Sri B.M.Gopal, Aged about 50 years, R/at No.169/3, I Main Road, Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru-560032.

¶41

:: 5 ::

¶42

Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o Sri Appaji, Aged about 42 years, R/at Thimmasandra, Tarahunise Post, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-562157.

¶43

Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o Sri N.C.Ramaiah, Aged about 45 years,

¶44

Sri N.R.Aravinda, S/o Sri N.C.Ramaiah, Aged about 30 years,

¶45

Sri N.R.Girisha, S/o Sri N.C.Ramaiah, Aged about 28 years,

¶46

Sri N.R.Chandra, S/o Sri N.C.Ramaiah, Aged about 26 years, Sl.No.7 to 10 are R/at Nagadasanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-560064. …Respondents

¶47

(By Sri M.Ravikumar, Advocate for Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, Advocate)

¶48

This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 06.10.2016 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.652/2014 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, allowing I.A.No.I filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶49

:: 6 ::

¶50

These MFAs coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶51

COMMON ORDER ON

¶52

I.A.NO.1/2021 FILED IN BOTH THE APPEALS

¶53

Applications as per IA No.1/2021 is filed by the appellant in both these appeals under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 1232 days in preferring the appeals.

¶54

Heard the appellant’s counsel.

¶55

The affidavit enclosed with the

¶56

applications show that the appellant received the suit summon and on the assurance that respondent No.3 would take care of his interest, he did not attend the suit. In the last week of July, 2021, the appellant enquired respondent No.3 about the progress in the suit and since he did not get a proper response from respondent No.3, he made enquiries and came to know that his earlier Advocate had not filed written statement and that the Court had also passed an

¶57

:: 7 ::

¶58

order of temporary injunction. Then he filed his written statement.

¶59

Perusing the affidavit, it becomes very

¶60

clear that the appellant himself has slept over the matter. Sufficient reasons are not made out for the delay caused in filing these appeals.

¶61

The appellant claims to be the purchaser of the part of the suit property. The suit is for partition. The appellant can contest the suit. In this view, I do not find any good ground to condone the delay in preferring these appeals. Accordingly, applications IA No.1/2021 in both the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, both the appeals also dismissed .

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Kmv/-

Sri N Muthurayappa v. Smt N C Muniyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Muthurayappa v. Smt N C Muniyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sushanth I Hiremath Vs Smt Nagachitra

Mrs. Halima Sadhiya Vs M G Mohammed Ismail

Sri Vinay Kumar Vs Smt Sumana J M @ Bavya

Sri.G.N. Nagarajaiah Vs Sri Bheemaiah

Sri N Muthurayappa Vs Smt N C Muniyamma

Sri Janardhan Devarajan Vs Nil