Dismissed

M/S Bengaluru Best Realty P Ltd. v. Smt Meenakshi

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2022RFA/444/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Regular First Appeal, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the condonation of delay application filed by the appellant, a private limited company, which was not aware of the decree. The court found the reasons unsatisfactory and consequently dismissed both the mentioned application and the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay application dismissed; Regular First Appeal dismissed.

M/S Bengaluru Best Realty P Ltd. Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2022 (PA/DE/IN)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. BENGALURU BEST REALTY (P) LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.5/1 A-2 BLOCK, RICH HOMES RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER

¶10

OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

¶11

MR. B.M. KARUNESH …APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT. SANJAYA RAO FOR

¶13

SHRI. M.V. SUNDARA RAMAN, ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. MEENAKSHI

¶16

Digitally signed by S P SUDHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

W/O SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT KOLIPURA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BANGALORE

¶18

SMT. GOWARAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT KOLIPURA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BANGALORE

¶19

SRI. K.M. SATISH

¶20

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA

¶21

¶22

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT KOLIPURA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BANGALORE

¶23

SRI. K.M. MUNIRAJ S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT KOLIPURA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BANGALORE

¶24

SRI. K.M. RAMESH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT KOLIPURA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 6. SRI. K.M. JAGANNATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT KOLIPURA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BANGALORE

¶25

SRI. B.V. DARMA PRAKASH S/O B.K. VEERAPPA RESIDING AT BELAME VILLAGE PALYA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.455 6^TH CROSS, 11^TH MAIN RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU

¶26

M/S. NAVODAYA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.149, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. B.S. DEVARAJ …RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.237/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND DECLARATION, INJUNCTION. THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶28

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This belated appeal by the eighth defendant in the suit is directed against judgment and decree dated February 1, 2017 in O.S. No.237/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.

¶31

Along with the appeal, appellant has filed I.A. No.1/2022 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 1052 days in filing this appeal.

¶32

Ms. Sanjana Rao, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that appellant was not aware about the decree passed by the Trial Court and learnt about the same after receiving summons from the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge in FDP No.1/2018.

¶33

It is recorded by the learned Trial Judge in para 5 of the judgment that appellant was represented by an Advocate and written statement was also filed.

¶34

In support of the application, the deponent has stated thus in the Affidavit:

¶35

¶36

"3. I state that the Appellant herein was not aware that a judgment and decree had been passed on 01.02.2017 by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Devanahalli in Original Suit No.237 of 2009. It was only when the Appellant received summons in July 2019 to appear before the Learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli in FDP No.1 of 2018 that the Appellant became aware that a preliminary decree had been passed and that the Respondent No.1 had instituted final decree proceedings.

¶37

4. I state that the Appellant did not receive any updates from its legal counsel at the time and was completely taken aback upon learning that the decree had been passed. It is to be noted that the Appellant was not even aware that the subject case had been listed for its evidence on various dates and pursuant to non-appearance, the stage was closed. Further, the Appellant only belatedly learned that its counsel had also been unable to cross-examine the Plaintiff witness therein.

¶38

5. The Appellant thereafter took steps to obtain Court records and only then learned that the preliminary decree 01.02.2017 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli in Original Suit No.237 of 2009 was passed arbitrarily and without the Plaintiff proving its case in accordance with law."

¶39

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶40

Admittedly, appellant is a Private Limited

¶41

Company registered under the provisions of Companies

¶42

¶43

Act, 1956. It has entered appearance in the Trial Court and filed its written statement. The reasons stated in the Affidavit seeking condonation of delay of nearly three years (1052 days), are not satisfactory. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

SPS

M/S Bengaluru Best Realty P Ltd. v. Smt Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bengaluru Best Realty P Ltd. v. Smt Meenakshi

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

Smt Ramalaxmamma Vs Sri. M.K. Kumare Gowda

A R Somashekar Vs Smt a R Shobha

The Commisioner of Customs Mangalore Vs Mangalore Chemicals and

Smt Ambika G Nayak Vs Sri Ganesh S Nayak

Ganesh S Nayak Vs Smt Ambika G Nayak

Bande Nawaj Vs the Director General