Dismissed¶46

Smt Suma Sinivas v. T M Narasimhan Since Deceased Represented by His LRs Smt. Lakshmi

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2025COMAP/206/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; COMAP No. 206 of 2025; decided 11.12.2025; coram Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice (author) and C.M. Poonacha, J.; appeal under S.13(1-A) Commercial Courts Act against judgment and decree dated 11.03.2025 in Com.O.S. No.1276/2022 (LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru) directing vacation of demised premises and enquiry into mesne profits; appeal dismissed for non-prosecution after appellants' counsel filed memo of retirement citing lack of instructions; eviction decree already executed; no merits adjudicated; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Since the appellants were not pursuing the present appeal, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶47

Smt Suma Sinivas Vs T M Narasimhan Since Deceased Represented by His LRs Smt. Lakshmi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:52496-DB COMAP No. 206 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT SUMA SINIVAS W/O LATE T.M. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. DEEPTHI SRINIVAS D/O LATE T.M. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.12, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, SRINIVASA COLONY, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAJESH B L, ADVOCATE

¶16

SRINIVAS A R.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

T M NARASIMHAN SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52496-DB COMAP No. 206 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. LAKSHMI, W/O ESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. S.R. ESHWARI, D/O LATE PARVATHI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. S.R. DEVI, D/O LATE PARVATHI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶24

SMT. ANJANA DEVI, W/O H. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶25

SMT. BHAVANI, W/O H.N. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶26

RESIDING AT NO. 17, 1ST CROSS, SRINIVASA COLONY, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU 560027.

¶27

PRISM LIGHTS NO 64, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS ARPITH BALIYA AND SUNITHA BALIYA

¶28

SRI. ARPITH BALIYA PARTNER, PRISM LIGHTS NO 64, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 025

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. ANIL S SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52496-DB COMAP No. 206 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SEC..13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2025 PASSED IN COM. OS NO.1276/2022 BY THE LXXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE - A.

¶34

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶36

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has furnished a memo of retirement. He states that he has already informed the appellants his intention not to continue with the present appeal and he has returned all the documents. He also states that he has no instructions to represent the appellants.

¶40

The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2025 in Com.O.S. No.1276/2022, whereby the learned Commercial Court had directed the appellants to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the demised premises and directed that further enquiry be conducted to assess

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:52496-DB COMAP No. 206 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the mesne profits. The decree as far as eviction is concerned has

¶45

been executed.

¶46

3. Since the appellants are not pursing the present appeal, the

¶47