Dismissed¶43

H B Somashekar v. D Rajashekar

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025RFA/1311/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance suit dismissed — appeal withdrawn on amicable settlement out of court — refund of entire court fee under amended S.66(2) Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 — H B Somashekar v. D Rajashekar and End Time Full Gospel Harvesters India — RFA No. 1311 of 2015 against judgment and decree dated 01.09.2015 in O.S.No.16/2013, Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur — High Court of Karnataka, 29.10.2025 — B M Shyam Prasad and T.M.Nadaf, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn on amicable settlement; Registry directed to refund the entire court fee to the appellant under the amended Section 66(2), Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958; all interim orders stand dissolved. ¶43

H B Somashekar Vs D Rajashekar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43160-DB RFA No. 1311 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2015 (SP-)

BETWEEN:

H B SOMASHEKAR

S/O BEERAPPA

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RA/T D.NO.2715 MARUTHI BADAVANE, HUNSUR CITY, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571105.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H

¶17

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

AND:

¶19

D RAJASHEKAR

¶20

S/O LATE DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/T KAMADHENU FARUM CHIKKAHUNSUR, HUNSUR CITY MYSURU DISTRICT-571105.

¶21

END TIME FULL GOSPEL HARVESTERS INDIA,

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43160-DB RFA No. 1311 of 2015

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

HUNSUR REP BY MR. K. STEVEN SURESH RA/T D.NO.3868, GUKULAM ROAD, NEW RATHNAPURI ROAD, HUNSUR-571105 MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.E. VEERESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SUNDAR RAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.16/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶30

and

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43160-DB RFA No. 1311 of 2015

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶36

The appellant is unsuccessful in the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.16/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur, [for short, ' the Civil Court' ] with the Civil Court dismissing his suit by the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2015. Presently, the appellant has filed a memo which reads as under:

¶37

"The Counsel for the Appellant submits that since the parties to the above Appeal have amicably settled the dispute out of court, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the above appeal as withdrawn in the interest of justice and equity.

¶38

It is prayed that in view of amicable settlement, this Hon'ble Court may kindly order the refund of the Court Fee paid by the Appellant as permissible under the law in the interest of justice and equity."

¶39

The learned counsels for the parties reiterate that the parties have settled the dispute out of Court

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:43160-DB RFA No. 1311 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

and the appeal could be dismissed accordingly. In view of the afore, the appeal is dismissed, and in view of the amended provisions to Section 66(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the Registry is directed to refund the entire Court fee to the appellant. With this dismissal order, all interim orders stand dissolved.

¶44

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶45

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶46

SA ct:sr

H B Somashekar v. D Rajashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H B Somashekar v. D Rajashekar

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

Dr a Janardhan Vs Union of India

Designated Committee Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Vs M/S L M Wind Power Blades India Pvt. Ltd.

The Assessment Unit Vs Sri Bangalore Cheluva Narayan

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-3 Vs Infosys Ltd.

Dr P Dayananda Pai Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Durgappa Lakkanna Vs Assistant Commissioner