Dismissed

Mubeena v. G.R. Nagaraju

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023RFA/1213/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 CPC against a judgment deeming suit decreed against appellants. Appellants sought withdrawal as respondent expired. Court allowed withdrawal dismissing appeal with liberty to file fresh appeal against legal representatives.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; liberty reserved to file fresh appeal against legal representatives of deceased respondent.

Mubeena Vs G.R. Nagaraju — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39155 RFA No. 1213 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUBEENA,

¶9

W/O. LATE FAZLU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶10

ALTHAF, S/O. LATE FAZLU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶11

RUHULLA, S/O. LATE FAZLU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MUSTHAFA, S/O. ANWAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶14

ALL RESIDING AT GOPALADEVARAHALLI, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK - 572 125, TUMAKUR DISTRICT.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. VIVEK S., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39155 RFA No. 1213 of 2023

¶18

AND:

¶19

G.R. NAGARAJU, S/O. LATE D. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT GOPALADEVARAHALLI, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK - 572 125, TUMAKUR DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENT THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.68/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The said memo reads as under:-

¶24

"The Appellants most respectfully crave leave of this Hon'ble Court and submits that at the time of filing the captioned appeal, we had not brought to the notice of our counsel that Respondent i.e. G.R.Nagaraju has expired. Therefore by oversight the present appeal is filed against a dead person.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39155 RFA No. 1213 of 2023

¶26

In view of the same, the Appellants crave leave of this Hon'ble Court and submits that they may be permitted to withdraw the captioned appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal by arraying legal representatives of the deceased Sri.G.R.Nagaraju as Respondents in accordance with law. The memo may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity."

¶27

In the aforesaid memo, it is contended that sole respondent has expired on 08.11.2020 as evidenced by the death certificate produced along with the memo dated 30.10.2023 and as such, it is necessary that appeal is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty in favour of the appellants to prefer a fresh appeal against the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.

¶28

Memo is placed on record.

¶29

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty in

¶30

favour of the appellants to prefer an appeal against the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:39155 RFA No. 1213 of 2023

¶33

Registry is directed to return all the papers back to

¶34

the appellants forthwith without any delay.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Mubeena v. G.R. Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubeena v. G.R. Nagaraju

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

Mrs Shakira Begum Vs M/S Sri Nakoda Construction Ltd.

Sri Venkatesha Naidu Vs Sri P Sanjeeva Murthy Rao

Sri.B.N. Nanjundaswamy Vs Smt. N Ranjini

M/S. Barton Real Estate Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Southern Investments

Sri. R. Mahadevaswamy Vs Smt. Jalajakshi Salimath

Smt. J Rajeshwari Vs State of Karnataka