Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri B H Krishna Vs Sri Rajendra Prasad — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Sri B H Krishna Vs Sri Rajendra PrasadSri B H Krishna v. Sri Rajendra Prasad

Dismissed¶35

Sri B H Krishna v. Sri Rajendra Prasad

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2025RFA/532/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of Regular First Appeal for non-prosecution; adjournment prayer rejected where appellant claimed affidavit filed before Acting Chief Justice seeking transfer to another bench but produced no documents; counsel's threatening attitude towards the Court recorded; appeal against decree dated 05.03.2021 in O.S. No. 2975/2016 dismissing suit for permanent injunction; Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 CPC; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; S Rachaiah, J.; decided 09.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for adjournment was rejected: the appellant had produced no document to substantiate the claimed affidavit filed before the Acting Chief Justice seeking transfer of the case, appeared to be purposefully seeking adjournments, and the learned counsel showed a threatening attitude towards the Court and was unwilling to proceed with the case.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular First Appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution after the appellant repeatedly sought adjournment without producing any document in support of his request that the case be transferred to another bench.

Court's answer

The prayer for adjournment was rejected: the appellant had produced no document to substantiate the claimed affidavit filed before the Acting Chief Justice seeking transfer of the case, appeared to be purposefully seeking adjournments, and the learned counsel showed a threatening attitude towards the Court and was unwilling to proceed with the case.

Ratio / Principle

The Regular First Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021 in O.S. No. 2975/2016 (XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City), whereby the suit for permanent injunction was dismissed. When the appeal came up for further hearing, the appellant sought adjournment on the ground that an affidavit expressing displeasure about the Court had been filed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice requesting that the matter be posted before another bench, but no document was produced in support. Observing that the appellant was purposefully seeking adjournments and that the learned counsel showed a threatening attitude towards the Court and was unwilling to proceed, the Single Judge rejected the adjournment prayer and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

A

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25688 RFA No. 532 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2021 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B H KRISHNA S/O LATE HALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT SITE NO.6, 1ST CROSS VINOBA COLONY, AVALAHALLI BENGALURU 560 026.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. K S NARAYANA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O LATE BASAVANNACHARI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.90, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU 560 079.

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2021 PASSED IN OS.No.2975/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25688 RFA No. 532 of 2021

HC-KAR

BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Case called out.

Today the matter is listed for Further Hearing.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that as the appellant had filed an affidavit expressing dis-pleasure about the Court and requested Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice to post the matter before the another bench. The matter needs to be adjourned.

However, the learned counsel for the respondent

vehemently objected the adjournment of the case.

The learned counsel for the appellant sought for adjournment on the ground that the appellant filed affidavit before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice to transfer the case.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25688 RFA No. 532 of 2021

HC-KAR

However, he has not produced any documents in that regard. It appears that the appellant is purposefully seeking adjournments. It is needless to say that, this Court has been allotted RFA roster for two years i.e., 2020 and 2021. In order to dispose of the matter, this Court requested the learned counsels for the respective parties to proceed with the matter. However, the learned counsel showed threatening attitude towards the Court and he was not willing to proceed with the case. Therefore, the prayer for adjournment is rejected .

The Regular First Appeal stands dismissed for

non-prosecution.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Regular First Appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution after the appellant repeatedly sought adjournment without producing any document in support of his request that the case be transferred to another bench.medium confidence¶34
The court held
The prayer for adjournment was rejected: the appellant had produced no document to substantiate the claimed affidavit filed before the Acting Chief Justice seeking transfer of the case, appeared to be purposefully seeking adjournments, and the learned counsel showed a threatening attitude towards the Court and was unwilling to proceed with the case.ratio¶34

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 96¶16 Order XLI Rule 1¶16

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021 passed in O.S. No. 2975/2016 by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.¶16
XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City · 05.03.2021
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S. No. 2975/2016 before the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, ended in a judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021 dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.¶20
Prior proceeding
RFA No. 532 of 2021 filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC against the said judgment and decree.¶16
Prior proceeding
On the day of delivery the matter was listed for Further Hearing; the appellant sought adjournment, which the Court rejected.¶25

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
SRI. B H KRISHNA S/O LATE HALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT SITE NO.6, 1ST CROSS VINOBA COLONY, AVALAHALLI BENGALURU 560 026¶9
K S NARAYANA SWAMY
respondent
SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O LATE BASAVANNACHARI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.90, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU 560 079¶13
PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE

Coram

AI extract

S RACHAIAHauthor¶22

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 9 Jul 2025 · July
Registered: 17 Jul 2021
Case no.: RFA/532/2021
CNR: KAHC010120632021
Bench: S Rachaiah
Disposal: Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
Case type: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL (INJ)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from S Rachaiah

Sri Srikanth B Vs Sri G N Manjunath
7 Jul 2025
M Narayana Reddy Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha
4 Jul 2025
Dr H K Nagaraj Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha
4 Jul 2025
K Hanumanthappa Vs Smt. Bhagyamma
10 Jul 2025
H P Prashanth Kumar Vs K N Lokesh
10 Jul 2025
S. Shivakumar Vs S. Siddegowda
10 Jul 2025

Cite this judgement

Sri B H Krishna v. Sri Rajendra Prasad, RFA/532/2021 (KA), decided on 9 July 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 96 · Order XLI Rule 1

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021 passed in O.S. No. 2975/2016 by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City · 05.03.2021
Suit O.S. No. 2975/2016 before the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, ended in a judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021 dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.
RFA No. 532 of 2021 filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC against the said judgment and decree.

View full history

Bench / Coram

S RACHAIAH

Parties & counsel