In a regular first appeal under CPC Section 96, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the trial court's rejection of an application to set aside sale (Order 21 Rule 98). The appeal was adjudicated ex parte as there was non-prosecution by the appellant.
The appeal was dismissed as it was not prosecuted.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:37812 RFA No. 734 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 734 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE IN SY. NO. 21/38/1C, WARD NO. 55, BEARING MUNICIPAL NO. 21, KADARENAHALLI BSK II STAGE, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 020
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.L.N. MURTHY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
Digitally AND: signed by MALATESH K C 1. SRI. B.N. NANJUNDASWAMY, Location: S/O NANJUNDAIAH, HIGH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, COURT OF R/AT SY.NO. 38 AND 38/1 AND KARNATAKA WARD NO. 55, BEARING MUNICIPAL NO. 21, KADARENAHALLI, BSK II STAGE, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 070 NOW HE IS NOT RESIDING IN THE ABOVE PREMISES AND HE IS RESIDING
AT NO. HEJA VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, BENGALURU
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE
1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2024 PASSED ON IA IN EX. NO.3595/2018 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 98 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
None appears for the appellant.
appellant, challenging the dismissal of the I.A. filed under Order-21, Rule-98 of CPC. Perused the impugned order. Learned trial judge in the executing Court has noted that there is a violation of the order passed in RFA No.68/2024 and Judgment Debtor has created third party right, after the judgment in RFA No.68/2024 came to be passed. So also the learned trial judge has noted that the objector is claiming under the judgment debtor and there is no independent right made out. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against the dismissal of an objector's application for setting aside sale under Order 21 Rule 98 CPC can succeed when the appellant is in non-prosecution.
Whether a third party claim made after a prior related appeal can negate an independent right under Order 21 Rule 98 of CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH
SRI. B.N. NANJUNDASWAMY
MS. N. RAJANI
V. SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
