Dismissed¶¶72

Somamma v. Hadadi Suresh

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2025CRP/362/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP No. 362 of 2017, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, decided 25.11.2025 by V. Srishananda J.; revision under Sec.115 CPC against order dated 7.8.2017 of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Harihar in Ex.Case No.10/2007 on IA No.1 under Order 26 Rule 13 CPC; petition dismissed as withdrawn on counsel's memo dated 25.11.2025 ('petitioner is not willing to prosecute the matter'); liberty to file memo of instructions and identify property not forming part of the decree; parties agriculturists of Hallihalu Village, Harihar Taluk, Davanagere; HDK List No.: 1, Sl No.: 40.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of CRP No. 362 of 2017 permitted upon counsel's memo dated 25.11.2025; liberty left to the revision petitioners to file a memo of instructions and identify the property in their ownership which does not form part of the decree. ¶¶72

Somamma Vs Hadadi Suresh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.08.2017 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Harihar on IA No.1 in Ex.Case No.10/2007 (filed by the 1st respondent under Order 26 Rule 13 CPC) should be set aside. +1 more

¶¶58

Ratio / Principle

The memo dated 25.11.2025 was taken on record and, in view of it, the civil revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶¶71

Key takeaways

The revision petitioners were granted liberty to file a memo of instructions and identify the property owned by them which is not forming part of the decree.ratio¶¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, single-judge bench (V. Srishananda, J.) — Civil Revision Petition No. 362 of 2017 (IO), filed under Sec.115 CPC by thirteen agriculturists of Hallihalu Village, Harihar Taluk, Davanagere District (counsel: Sri. Hanumanthappa B. Haravi Gowdar), praying to set aside the order dated 7.8.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Harihar in Ex.Case No.10/2007 on IA No.1 filed by the 1st respondent under Order 26 Rule 13 of CPC. Respondents 1, 7 and 8 were represented by Sri. B.S. Hadimani; notice to respondents 2 to 6 was held sufficient vide order dated 22.11.2017. After arguments were addressed for some time, counsel for the petitioners filed a memo dated 25.11.2025 stating the petitioner was not willing to prosecute the matter and seeking withdrawal. The memo was taken on record; the civil revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the revision petitioners to file a memo of instructions and identify the property in their ownership which is not forming part of the decree. No precedent was cited or considered and no costs or quantum awarded.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:48889 CRP No. 362 of 2017

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 362 OF 2017 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SOMAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶8

MYTHRAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶9

SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MANJUNATHA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶13

NAGARAJ

¶14

S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶15

BASAMMA

¶16

S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶17

GIRIJAMMA

¶18

W/O LATE HADADI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48889 CRP No. 362 of 2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SHIVANANDAPPA B M S/O LATE HADADI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶22

PRAKASH

¶23

S/O LATE HADADI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶24

RATHNAMMA

¶25

S/O LATE HADADI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶26

HANUMANTAMMA

¶27

D/O LATE HADADI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶28

RAJAPPA

¶29

S/O LATE HADADI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶30

JAYASHEELAMMA

¶31

D/O LATE HADADI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶32

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND ALL ARE R/O HALLIHALU VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK DIST: DAVANAGERE PIN: 577 005

¶33

…PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVI GOWDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:48889 CRP No. 362 of 2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

AND:

¶39

HADADI SURESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA R/O HALLIHALU VILLAGE, TQ: HARIHAR DIST: DAVANAGERE PIN: 577005

¶40

MALLAMMA

¶41

W/O LATE HADADI MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HOUSEWIFE

¶42

NAGARAJ

¶43

S/O LATE HADADI MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶44

SHANUMAKA

¶45

D/O LATE HADADI MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶46

HANUMANMTHAMMA D/O LATE HADADI MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶47

RATHNAMMA

¶48

D/O LATE HADADI MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶49

R2 TO R6 ARE R/AT MUTTI PALYA VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DIST PIN: 577 005

¶50

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48889 CRP No. 362 of 2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

HANUMANTHAPPA

¶53

S/O LATE HADADI BASAPPA OCC: AGRICULTURISTS R/O HALLIHALU VILLAGE TALUK: HARIHAR DIST: DAVANAGERE PIN:577005

¶54

SMT BYRAMMA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA R/O HALLIHALU VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANGERE DIST PIN:577005

¶55

…RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SRI. B.S. HADIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R7 AND R8 R2 TO R6 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT

¶57

VIDE ORDER DATED 22.11.2017)

¶58

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HARIHAR IN EX.CASE NO.10/2007 ON IA NO.1 FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 13 OF CPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶59

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶60

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶61

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:48889 CRP No. 362 of 2017

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

ORAL ORDER

¶66

After addressing the arguments for sometime,

¶67

learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo dated 25.11.2025 seeking to withdraw the revision petition, which reads as under:

¶68

"It is submitted that the petitioner is not willing to prosecute the matter. Hence please kindly permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition. Hence this memo in the interest of justice and equity."

¶69

The memo is taken on record.

¶70

In view of the said memo, the civil revision

¶71

petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶72

However, the revision petitioners are at liberty to file a memo of instructions and identify the property which is their property, which is in the ownership of the revision petitioner and which is not forming part of the decree.

¶73

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

¶74

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

Somamma v. Hadadi Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somamma v. Hadadi Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. v. M. Shashidar Vs Sri. Vasuki

Hillari Nazarath Vs K H Imtiyaz

Sri S H Rajesh Vs Sri G Narayanaswamy

Smt N N Shruthi Vs N G Kiran

Smt Navyashree B K Vs Sri S Puneeth

Sri K Krishna Murthy Vs Smt Mahalakshmi