Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed a first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) CPC as infructuous because the underlying suit had been previously dismissed. The court further refused to let the appellant's counsel retire due to defective service.
Appeal dismissed as infructuous; counsel's retirement disallowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9526 OF 2018 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ERAPPA REDDY M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.389/74, 9TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040.
…RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(c) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2018, PASSED IN MISC.NO.664/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-18),
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 9 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant has filed the retirement memo. The notice has not been served on the appellant and the same was returned with an endorsement “door locked” and the same is not a proper service. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant is not permitted to retire from the case.
it discloses that the suit was contested and dismissed on 24.09.2018 by the 20-CCH-18, XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the first appeal survives after the dismissal of the underlying suit.
Whether service of notice was proper to permit retirement of the counsel.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. LOKESH BARUA
SRI. B. RAVINDRA NAIK
SMT. G. VIJAYALAKSHMI
H.P.SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
