Dismissed¶40

Smt. Munirathnamma @ Rathnamma v. Kushala Rama Reddy @ Rama Reddy

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2025RFA/1778/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC RFA 1778/2016 (PAR) dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.06.2025 by Justice Jyoti Mulimani. Appellants: Munirathnamma (deceased, by LRs incl. Vijaya Raghava Reddy), Rukmini, Venugopal Reddy, K.H. Sarojamma, Rama Reddy (counsel B.N. Suresh for A1/A2; Shivamurthi A.R. for A3). Respondents: Kushala Rama Reddy, Susheelamma, Meenakshamma, Sharadamma (Nagareddy V. for R1; R2 served and unrepresented). Filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC. Decree under appeal not described; no quantum; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

As the appellants were not represented when the case was called on 03.06.2025 and again on 04.06.2025, and appear not interested in prosecuting the appeal, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶40

Smt. Munirathnamma @ Rathnamma Vs Kushala Rama Reddy @ Rama Reddy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18808 RFA No. 1778 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1778 OF 2016 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA @ RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. H. NANJUNDA REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S,

¶10

(a) SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVA REDDY S/O. LATE. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 28, 6^TH CROSS, OPPOSITE M.S. VILLA APARTMENTS, KULLAPPA COLONY, MURUGESHPALYA, BANGALORE-560 017.

¶11

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. RUKMINI D/O. LATE. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, W/O. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3, KPTCL QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.

¶13

SRI. VENUGOPAL REDDY D/O. LATE. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 337, DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 081.

¶14

SMT. K.H.SAROJAMMA W/O. LATE. K.P.BALAKRISHNAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KUNDALAHALLI, DODDENAKUNDI POST,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18808 RFA No. 1778 of 2016

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

BANGALORE-560 081.

¶18

SRI. RAMA REDDY S/O. LATE. SMT.NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17, LALBHAGH, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR 1^ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-11.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B.N.SURESH., ADVOCATE FOR A1 (A, B, C) & A2 [ABSENT]; SRI. SHIVAMURTHI.A.R., ADVOCATE FOR A3 [ABSENT])

¶21

AND:

¶22

KUSHALA RAMA REDDY @ RAMA REDDY S/O. LATE. K.R.HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NANJA REDDY COLONY, HANUMANTHAREDDY LANE, MURUGESHA PALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE-17.

¶23

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. H. CHENNA REDDY, D/O. LATE. K.R.HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NANJA REDDY COLONY, HANUMANTHAREDDY LANE, MURUGESHA PALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE-17.

¶24

SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA D/O. LATE. K.R.HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO. 17, LALBHAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR 1^ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 011.

¶25

SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. LATE. K.R.HANUMANTHA REDDY,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18808 RFA No. 1778 of 2016

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R.AT NO. 89/1, VINAYAKA NAGAR, BEHIND KSRTC COLONY, AUDUGODI POST, BANGALORE-30.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. NAGAREDDY.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶31

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC.

¶32

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER:

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

When the case is called, the appellants are not represented. When the case is listed and called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.

¶35

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 03.06.2025, on that day, when the matter is called, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, for appearance of counsel for the appellants it was ordered to be listed on 04.06.2025.

¶36

The appeal is listed today for appearance of counsel of the appellants. As already noted above, when the case is

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:18808 RFA No. 1778 of 2016

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

called, the appellants are not represented. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶41

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶42

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Smt. Munirathnamma @ Rathnamma v. Kushala Rama Reddy @ Rama Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Munirathnamma @ Rathnamma v. Kushala Rama Reddy @ Rama Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K N Madhusudan Vs Smt. Parvthamma

H Lokeshappa Vs Smt.Ratnamma

Smt. Saraswathamma Vs Smt. Channamma

Yeshwanthpur Lorry Owners Association (Regd) Vs Ministry of Transport and Highways

M/S. Jsf Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Smt. Yashaswini R Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited