Dismissed¶35

St Marys Kalamane and Arekal Estates v. Peter J R Prabhu

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2025MFA/4770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: withdrawal of appeal by counsel's memo; MFA No. 4770 of 2024 (CPC); Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC; Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; injunction application I.A. No.6 in O.S.No.10/2021 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere); injunctive relief against Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I; statutory bar; W.P.No.18774/2024; St. Marys Kalamane and Arekal Estates; Avinash Prabhu; Peter J.R. Prabhu; State Bank of India; J.P. Darshan; Ramachandra D. Huddar J.; dismissed as withdrawn; decision dated 14.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the appellant pursuant to the withdrawal memo dated 10.07.2025. ¶35

St Marys Kalamane and Arekal Estates Vs Peter J R Prabhu — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25772 MFA No. 4770 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4770 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN:

¶7

ST. MARYS KALAMANE AND AREKAL ESTATES NIDUVALE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO. 11, HOYES ROAD BENGALURU-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. AVINASH PRABHU S/O PETER J.R PRABHU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT ST. MARY KALMANE ESTATE NIDUVALE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI. J.P. DARSHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

PETER J.R. PRABHU S/O LATE MR. H.P. RODRIGUES MAJOR NO.80, III CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER COMMERCIAL BRANCH

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25772 MFA No. 4770 of 2024

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

VELLORE DISTRICT WALAJPET-632 513

¶17

THE RECOVERY OFFICER DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I 6^TH FLOOR, DEWA TOWERS 770-A, ANNA SALAI CHENNAI-600 002

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 6 IN O.S.NO.10/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE, DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶21

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo

¶25

dated 10.07.2025 to withdraw this appeal.

¶26

The said memo is reads as under:

¶27

MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL

¶28

The undersigned counsel for the appellant herewith submits that the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order date 05.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.6 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the appellant seeking injunctive reliefs against respondent No.3 in O.S.No.10/2021.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:25772 MFA No. 4770 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

It is further submitted that since on the same day the trial Court in O.S.No.10/2021 passed an order on I.A No.4 and directed the applicant to delete the respondent No.3 from the suit. Challenging this order, the appellant had preferred the writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.18774/2024. In the said petition, this Hon'ble Court has observed that Recovery Officer cannot be made a party, and injunctive reliefs could not be sought so as against the respondent No.3 as there is a statutory bar to the same and has dismissed the petition.

¶33

It is submitted that in the above appeal too, the appellant has challenged order on I.A. under XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking restraint against respondent No.3. In the light of the above decision of this Hon'ble Court, the above appeal becomes infructuous and hence this memo of withdrawal may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity."

¶34

In view of the aforesaid memo, the appeal is

¶35

dismissed as withdrawn.

¶36

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶37

AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

St Marys Kalamane and Arekal Estates v. Peter J R Prabhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St Marys Kalamane and Arekal Estates v. Peter J R Prabhu

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. M. Krishna Reddy Vs Ace Forge Private Limited

Smt Nethravathi v S Vs Sri K Babu, S/O Konappa

Manohar Singh Vs Suresh Kumar Rawal

Sri Shreedara Vs M/S Harish Inn

Sri G Venkatesh Reddy Vs Smt B Padmavathi

Sri H R Vishwanatha Vs Sri a S Kumaraswamy