Sri.Babu Pishe v. Sri Jagannath Pishe

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2025RFA/260/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abatement of appeal; deceased respondents; failure to substitute deceased parties; failure to file paper books; partition suit among family members; entire appeal abates; Section 96 CPC; Order 41 CPC; RFA 260/2014; Karnataka High Court 2025; O.S. 26889/2007; Rs.3,000 cost; disposed as abated; no relief.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands abated against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who had passed away, as the appellant failed to take steps notwithstanding the respondents' counsel opposing the adjournment. ¶45

Sri.Babu Pishe Vs Sri Jagannath Pishe — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29018-DB RFA No. 260 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2014 (PAR-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.BABU PISHE SON OF LATE P.E.GNANOBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT 307, "NARAYANA MAHAL", K.KAMARAJ ROAD, BANGALORE 560 042

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. MEENAKSHY K NATESAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI JAGANNATH PISHE SON OF LATE P.E.GNANOBA RAO, RESIDING AT NO. 4157, 14TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 008.

¶16

SMT.KRISHNA BAI WIFE OF LATE P.E.GNANOBA RAO, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.4157, 14TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 008.

¶17

SMT. P.G. PARVATHI WIFE OF LATE SATHYANARAYANA RAO,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:29018-DB RFA No. 260 of 2014

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MAJOR, RESIDING AT M.G.ROAD, NEAR PANDURANGA TEMPLE, OPP. SBMATM, KANAKPURA- 562 117

¶21

SMT. R. LAKSHMI MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 131, K.KAMRAJ ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001

¶22

SMT. D. SHAMALA MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.155, ARMSTRONG ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001

¶23

SMT. G. GAYATHRI RESIDING AT NO.9, ANJINAPPA LAYOUT 2ND A CROSS,3RD MAIN, HORAMAVU, BANGALORE 560043

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D, ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96, READ WITH ORDER 41, OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.11.2013 PASSED IN O.S. 26889/2007 IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BEGALURU IN THE SUIT SCHEDUL A AND B PROPERTIES AND TO 1/7 SHARE IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT PROPERTY AND GRANT OTHER RELIEF/S.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:29018-DB RFA No. 260 of 2014

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶34

The counsel holding brief of Smt. Meenakshi K

¶35

Natesan, advocate, requests an adjournment for taking steps in respect of deceased Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He also seeks time for filing of paper books.

¶36

A perusal of the order sheet reflects that on 08.11.2023, an application bearing IA No.1/2017 was considered and it was informed by counsel appearing for the Respondents that both the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had passed away and the application does not survive for consideration. The application was accordingly dismissed.

¶37

On that very day, the Court peremptorily granted four weeks time to file paper books.

¶38

On 13.12.2023, peremptorily four weeks time

¶39

was granted by this court to comply with the Office Objections. On 31.08.2024, on the request of the counsel for the appellant, two weeks time was granted to file

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29018-DB RFA No. 260 of 2014

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

paper books subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/-. On 16.01.2025, time was again granted by this Court to take steps to file paper books.

¶43

The series of orders passed by this Court

¶44

reflects the inaction on part of the Appellant.

¶45

In this view of the matter, given the fact that learned counsel for the Respondents who is present in Court and opposes the adjournment and who states that the appeal has abated, the appeal stands abated against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶46

It is evident from perusal of the memo of appeal that there are six Respondents. The suit was for partition. All the parties are family members. Since the appeal stands abated against two of the Respondents who are family members of rest of the parties, the entire appeal abates.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:29018-DB RFA No. 260 of 2014

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed off as

¶51

abated.

¶52

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶53