Allowed

Mr Mohamed Inayathulla v. Mr Nazeer Pasha

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024RFA/2105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal filed by a party-in-person against an order rejecting a plaint. The Court observed that higher court appeals in a trial court matter should be filed before the competent District Court, not the High Court. Papers were returned to the appellant for preference before the proper court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal papers returned to appellant for presentation before the District Judiciary, Bangalore Rural; High Court appeal disposed of.

Mr Mohamed Inayathulla Vs Mr Nazeer Pasha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39280 RFA No. 2105 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2105 OF 2024 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. MOHAMED INAYATHULLA, ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION, S/O MR. MOHAMMED SANAULLA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO. 302, 2ND FLOOR, "MAK ENCALVE APPT", 9^TH "C" MAIN ROAD, BTM 1^ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHAMED INAYATHULLA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MR. NAZEER PASHA, S/O LATE SYED MOULA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶15

MR. MOHAMMED YASEER, S/O MR. NAZEER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶16

MR. MOHAMMED ADNAN, S/O MR. NAZEER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL R/A NO. 44, 1ST FLOOR, C/O KAREEM ULLA SHARIEFF, 5TH MAIN ROAD, BTM 1ST STAGE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39280 RFA No. 2105 of 2024

¶18

BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2024 PASSED ON IA IN OS NO. 88/23 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, ALLOWING THE IA FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

After hearing the matter for some time, the party-in-

¶23

person has filed a memo which reads as under:

¶24

"The petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit him to prefer Appeal before proper Court. Hence, I may be permitted to agitate the matter before proper Court to meet the ends of justice."

¶25

In view of the memo and taking note of the valuation

¶26

of the suit, the appeal papers are ordered to be returned to the Party-in-person/appellant for presentation before

¶27

the proper court in accordance with law.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39280 RFA No. 2105 of 2024

¶29

Taking note of the fact that the appeal arises out of a suit in O.S.No.88/2023 on the file of Prl. Civl Judge and JMFC, Anekal, the proper Court would be the District Judiciary, Bangalore Rural District. Therefore, the District Judiciary, Bangalore Rural District shall entertain the appeal and pass suitable order in accordance with law.

¶30

Office is directed to return the appeal papers after

¶31

making necessary entries in the concerned registers.

¶32

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of for statistical purpose.

¶33

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶34

SNC

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT: BHK

Mr Mohamed Inayathulla v. Mr Nazeer Pasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mohamed Inayathulla v. Mr Nazeer Pasha

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

R Rekha Vs Jayaramaiah

Sri. Ramu Vs Smt. Zeenathunnisa

Vimala Manne Vs Sarojamma

Smt. Devamma Vs Swamy

Sri T Ramanjani Vs Sri M P Pradeep Kumar

Sri P Shankarappa Vs Sri Dayananda