Court allowed an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC granting permission to the appellant to withdraw the regular second appeal with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit on the same cause of action based on parity.
Permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a comprehensive suit on the same cause of action.
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 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1105 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. V. RATHNAKUMARI, W/O. K.K. VIJAYAKUMARI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT OF SANJAY COLONY, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA H, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.49/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.07.2017
PASSED IN O.S.NO.297/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADARAVATHI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Application in I.A.No.1/2023 is filed by the appellant under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, seeking permission to withdraw the appeal/suit with liberty to file fresh comprehensive suit on the same cause of action.
copy of the judgment dated 07.11.2023 in Regular Second Appeal No.2032/2021 passed by the Co-ordinate of this Court and submits that the said appeal was filed against similar and identical order passed in RA No.50/2017 in respect of property which is situated at adjacent to the property of the appellant herein. He further submits that the appellant in this case and the appellant in said RSA No.2032/2021 are similarly situated.
the said suit and the plaintiff/appellant in the present
case, had filed suit for bare injunction, though claiming right in terms of the deed of sale, since there was a denial of right of the plaintiff, a suit for bare injunction was held to be not maintainable.
Sd/JUDGE
CR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether permission should be granted under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC to allow withdrawal of the regular second appeal with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit on the same cause of action.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. V. Rathnakumari
The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C.
The Depot Manager, K.S.R.T.C.
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
