K Harikrishna Vs Smt Kanakamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

K Harikrishna Vs Smt Kanakamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable; liberty reserved to the appellant to pursue the appeal before the competent appellate court (District Judge) under Section 96 CPC, with time spent before this Court to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act if the appeal is filed within two weeks; Registry to return certified copies forthwith after securing photocopies.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular First Appeal is maintainable before the High Court of Karnataka (office objection on maintainability). +1 more

Court's answer

Accepting the office objection raised on the maintainability of the appeal, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

Ratio / Principle

Since the plaint was valued at Rs.1,000/- and prayers Nos.2 and 3 were valued at Rs.1,000/- each, the appeal would lie before the District Judge and not before this Court.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach the Competent Appellate Court to avail the remedy under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.ratio¶¶51
If the appeal is filed within a period of two weeks, the time spent before this Court shall be excluded by extending the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.ratio¶¶52
Registry is directed to return all the certified copies forthwith after securing photocopies of the same.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Sachin Shankar Magadum J, 13 June 2025) in RFA No. 1328 of 2025 (DEC/INJ), filed under Section 96 r/w Order LXI Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the LRs of deceased plaintiff K. Harikrishna against the order dated 05.04.2025 of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal allowing I.A.No.XII (moved by defendant No.9 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC) and rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.440/2010. On the office objection regarding maintainability, the Court held that as the plaint was valued at Rs.1,000/- and prayers Nos.2 and 3 at Rs.1,000/- each, the appeal lay before the District Judge and not before the High Court; accepting the objection, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty was reserved to approach the competent appellate court under Section 96 CPC, with the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act (exclusion of time spent before the High Court) if the appeal was filed within two weeks; the Registry was directed to return certified copies forthwith after securing photocopies.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20423 RFA No. 1328 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1328 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

K. HARIKRISHNA

S/O. P. KUPPUSWAMY SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.

SRI. H. KUBERA S/O. LATE K. HARIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

SRI. H. AMUDA S/O. LATE K. HARIKRISHNA W/O. SHANTHAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. H. SATISH S/O. LATE K. HARIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

SRI. H. PRAKASH S/O. LATE K. HARIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

SRI. H. VINODKUMAR S/O. LATE K. HARIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 7 ANEPALYA MAIN ROAD ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20423 RFA No. 1328 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

SMT. KANAKAMMA W/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

SMT. MANJULA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

SMT. RENUKA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

SMT. SUSHEELA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

SRI. SRINIVAS S/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

SRI. VENKATESHWAR S/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

SRI. SRIHARI S/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT TIGALACHOWDANAHALLI SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU SOUTH.

SRI. D. S. VEERANJINAYA S/O. SHANKARAPPA ALIAS PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDENT OF DOMSANDRA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20423 RFA No. 1328 of 2025

HC-KAR

D. V. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF DOMMASANDRA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R.C. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-9)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER LXI RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.XII IN OS.NO.440/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, ALLOWING THE I.A.XII FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The office has raised objection regarding

maintainability of the appeal.

The suit filed before the II Additional Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Anekal was not entertained by the learned Judge and the application filed by defendant No.9 under Order VII Rule 11(a) was allowed and the plaint was rejected.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20423 RFA No. 1328 of 2025

HC-KAR

The valuation slip furnished by the plaintiffs

indicates that the plaint was valued at Rs.1,000/- and the prayer No.2 and 3 valued Rs.1,000/- each. Therefore, the appeal would lie before the District Judge and not before this Court.

Accepting the office objection raised on the maintainability of the appeal, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

Liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach the Competent Appellate Court to avail remedy under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code.

In the event the appeal is filed within a period of two weeks, the time spent before this Court shall be excluded by extending the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:20423 RFA No. 1328 of 2025

HC-KAR

Registry is directed to return all the certified copies

forthwith after securing photocopies of the same.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

NBM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43