Dismissed¶35

Maxworth Realty India Ltd. v. Mr Poojar Mahadevagouda

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025MFA/101500/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA 101500/2023, Karnataka HC Dharwad, decided 08-04-2025 by Justice Umesh M Adiga: appeal dismissed as infructuous after memo disclosed that O.S.No.497/2022 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.03.2025; no substantive adjudication of the interim-application issue.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as infructuous following dismissal of the underlying suit for non-prosecution ¶35

Why is it important?

Maxworth Realty India Ltd. Vs Mr Poojar Mahadevagouda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6266 MFA No. 101500 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101500 OF 2023 (CPC-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAXWORTH REALTY INDIA LTD, #12/2,KMP HOUSE, YAMUNABAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENAGALURUR-560001, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.KESAVA.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. P. V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶13

MR. POOJAR MAHADEVAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SON OF MR.BHEEMANGOUDA POOJAR.

¶14

MR. POOJAR BASANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SON OF MR HANAMANTAGOUDA POOJAR.

¶15

MR. POOJAR CHANDRASHEKARAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF MR SHIVANAGOUDA POOJAR.

¶16

MR. POOJAR RAMANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS , SON OF MR BHEEMANGOUDA POOJAR.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6266 MFA No. 101500 of 2023

¶18

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUSUGAL VILLAGE-580003, SHIRUGUPPI HOBLI, HUBBALLI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT.

¶19

MR. ARUNKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF MR MUNISWANY, 76 ,8TH CROSS, 14TH G MAIN, ATTIGUPPE,WEAVERS SOCIETY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,BENGALURU 560 040.

¶20

MR. CH. V. S. V. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SON OF MR. MALLIKARJUNRAO, NAVEEN PARK, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHVAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023.

¶21

MS. ANSUHA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. CH. VSV PRASAD NAVEEN PARK, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHVAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADV. FOR R6 & R7)

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.497/2022, PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED HEREIN ON IA #3 REJECTING THE PRAYER SEEKING A DIRECTION TO DEFENDANTS THEREIN NOT TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE SUIT PROPERTY DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SAID SUIT AND ETC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THERIN AS UNDER:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6266 MFA No. 101500 of 2023

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

¶30

Learned advocate for the appellant filed a

¶31

memo for dismissal of the appeal.

¶32

The said memo reads as under:

¶33

“In view of non-appearance of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.497/2022, the learned trial judge vide order dtd: 15.03.2025 has pleased to dismiss the above said suit for non-prosecution. Hence, the prayer sought by the appellant in the above case does not survive for consideration and become infractious. The certified copy of the order sheet dtd 15.03.2025 in O.S.No.497/2022 is produced herewith for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶34

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above case as it become infractious in view of dismissed of the suit and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

¶35