Allowed

Sri. Nagaraja v. M/S. Solomon David Holdings Private Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024RFA/1599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Karnataka allowed a delayed regular first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC against a trial court decree granting permanent injunction. The Court set aside the impugned judgment, condoned the delay, remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal, and directed the appellant to pay costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; appeal allowed; matter remitted to Trial Court for fresh disposal on payment of costs of Rs. 40,000/-.

Sri. Nagaraja Vs M/S. Solomon David Holdings Private Ltd. — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36914 RFA No. 1599 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1599 OF 2022 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O. LATE ANNAYAPPA RESIDING AT NO.30 CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE YEMLUR POST BANGALORE-560 037 …APPELLANT (BY SRI N JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI NITHISH KUMAR G, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

M/S. SOLOMON DAVID HOLDINGS PRIVATE LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICER AT NO.1^ST FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT NO.150, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560 008 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. NARPAT SINGH CHORARIA

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.11.2019 PASSED IN O.S. No.2211/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36914 RFA No. 1599 of 2022

¶15

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

Heard the learned counsel Smt. Maneesha Kongovi appearing for the contesting party.

¶19

There is a delay of 239 days in filing the appeal. The contesting respondent has filed a detailed written objections depicting the conduct of the appellant not only in filing the delayed appeal but also the conduct of the appellant in the Court below as well as other connected collateral proceedings.

¶20

Having heard the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the appellant did not contest the suit properly, appeal itself needs to be allowed. Therefore, the matter needs to be remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:36914 RFA No. 1599 of 2022

¶23

Accordingly, the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶24

By the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

The facts in brief which are utmost necessary

¶26

for disposal of the appeal as under:

¶27

A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.2211/2014 on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the relief of permanent injunction. The defendant entered appearance pursuant to the suit summons and filed written statement and thereafter, did not contest the suit properly. After affording sufficient opportunity, the learned trial Judge noted that the defendant is not interested in prosecuting the suit properly and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the present appeal.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36914 RFA No. 1599 of 2022

¶30

Having heard the parties and on perusal of the

¶31

material available on record, it is crystal clear that the suit was decided in the absence of the defendant as he failed to contest the suit properly except filing of the written statement.

¶32

Since the right in respect of the immovable properties are affected by the impugned judgment, an opportunity needs to be provided for the appellant to contest the suit on merits on payment of cost of Rs.40,000/- and in a time bound manner.

¶33

9. Accordingly, without discussing on the merits of

¶34

the matter, this Court pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

a) I.A.No.1/2022 is allowed and the appeal is also allowed.

¶37

b) The impugned judgment and decree dated 06.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.2211/2014 is set aside.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36914 RFA No. 1599 of 2022

¶39

c) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh

¶40

disposal in accordance with law on payment of cost of Rs.40,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent on or before 28.09.2024.

¶41

d) Parties shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 30.09.2024. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge shall consider the matter afresh on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law on or before 31.03.2025.

¶42

e) It is made clear that payment of cost is condition precedent for restoration of the suit.

¶43

f) In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending interlocutory applications if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed

¶44

¶45

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶46

Sri. Nagaraja v. M/S. Solomon David Holdings Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagaraja v. M/S. Solomon David Holdings Private Ltd.

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

Smt Anjinamma Vs Smt Muninanjamma

T. a. Shankarnarayana Vs Smt.Janaki Dattatreya Khandke

Sri M Gopal Vs Sri K Jayaprakash

Sri Udiyanda M. Muddaiah Vs Kodava Samaja

Sri Muni Anjinappa Vs Sri Ramaiah Since Dead by Lrs Smt Bylamma

Sri.Alwin Ambrose Vs Sri.Manivel