Partly allowed

Mr Mohammed Rizwan v. Mr Champakadhama

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023RFA/1742/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the regular first appeal as withdrawn. However, following a submission regarding the refund of court fee paid due to oversight, the Court directed the Registry to refund the entire court fee to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to refund the entire (100%) Court Fee paid on the Memorandum of Appeal back to the appellant forthwith.

Mr Mohammed Rizwan Vs Mr Champakadhama — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39742 RFA No. 1742 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1742 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR MOHAMMED RIZWAN S/O MOHAMMED USMAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 77, 7^TH CROSS, VENUGOPAL STREET, ANWAR LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 045.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SYED PEER ULLA SHA KHADRI.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MR CHAMPAKADHAMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE B C MUDDANNA, R/AT BILISHIVALE VILLAGE,

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DR SHIVARAMKARANATH NAGAR POST BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 077.

¶14

SHRI DINESH D VELANI S/O SRI DAHYABHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (BAKE N JAY), SHOP NO 03, IN THE PROPERTY, PROPERTY BEARING NO 4M- 401, HENNUR- BANASWADI ROAD, III BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KACHARAKANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KUMARA.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:39742 RFA No. 1742 of 2023

¶19

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2023. PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN EX.NO. 486/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM AT BENGALURU REJECTING THE IA NO.1 APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 97, 98, 99 101 AND 103 OF CPC.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the present appeal.

¶23

The said memo is placed on record.

¶24

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though

¶26

no Court fee was paid in the impugned execution proceedings by the respondent No.1 – decree holder, the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.10,300/- by way of Court Fee on the Memorandum of Appeal

¶27

due to oversight and inadvertence. It is submitted that since respondent No.1-decree holder had not paid any Court Fee in the impugned execution proceedings, the Court Fee paid by the appellant on the Memorandum of Appeal was due to mistake and inadvertence and the same may be refunded back to the appellant

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:39742 RFA No. 1742 of 2023

¶30

as contemplated under Section 67 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

¶31

The said submission is placed on record.

¶32

Registry to refund the entire (100%) Court Fee paid on

¶33

the Memorandum of Appeal back to the appellant forthwith.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Mr Mohammed Rizwan v. Mr Champakadhama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mohammed Rizwan v. Mr Champakadhama

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

Sri R Anandan Vs Smt Muniyamma

Smt K Maheshwari Vs Smt Muniyamma

Sri. S. Ravikumar Vs Sri.B.T. Yashwanth

Smt Rajkumari Bai Vs Smt K Kalavathi

Rajendran. N Vs Smt. Gowramma

Smt N Shubha Vs Sri B G Narayana Reddy