Sri R N Ramachandraiah Setty v. Sri Thomas Kutty

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025RSA/1098/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of regular second appeal; Section 151 CPC inherent power; Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC not strictly applicable to appeal by defendant No.1; dismissal as withdrawn; memo sufficient for withdrawal; appellants as masters of the appeal; unconditional permission to withdraw; Karnataka High Court RSA No.1098 of 2021; Chikkaballapur; OS.No.12/2006 decree dated 23.11.2015; RA.No.12/2016 judgment dated 21.10.2021; first appellate dismissal confirming trial court decree.

What did the court decide?

Appellants permitted to withdraw the appeal unconditionally under Section 151 CPC; Regular Second Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. ¶¶56 (order para 8)

Sri R N Ramachandraiah Setty Vs Sri Thomas Kutty — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appellants permitted to withdraw the appeal unconditionally under Section 151 CPC; Regular Second Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

¶¶56 (order para 8)

Ratio / Principle

The appellants were permitted to withdraw the Regular Second Appeal, the permission being granted in exercise of the Court's inherent power under Section 151 CPC.

¶¶50 (judgment para 7)

Key takeaways

Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is not strictly applicable to withdrawal of this appeal because the appeal was by defendant No.1.ratio¶¶49 (judgment para 6)
Since the appellants are the masters of the appeal and are not interested in prosecuting it, permission to withdraw was accorded unconditionally, even though the application was a surplusage on record, Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC having been pressed into service.ratio¶¶48 (judgment para 5)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, 19-09-2025 (V Srishananda J) — Regular Second Appeal No.1098 of 2021 (SP) filed under Section 100 CPC by the legal representatives of deceased R N Ramachandraiah Setty and P R Surya Prakash against Thomas Kutty (served and unrepresented) and Mathew Joseph, challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021 in RA.No.12/2016 (III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura), which had dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2015 in OS.No.12/2006 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur). After arguments had run for some time, the appellants filed an application under Section 151 CPC r/w Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, supported by the affidavit of legal representative T.R. Nirmala Devi, seeking permission to withdraw the appeal; counsel for respondent No.2 raised no objection. The Court observed that a memo would have sufficed for withdrawal; that the appellants, being masters of the appeal and not interested in prosecuting it, could be permitted to withdraw unconditionally even though the application was surplusage; and that Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is not strictly applicable to withdrawal of an appeal by defendant No.1. Exercising its power under Section 151 CPC, the Court permitted withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No substantive issue on the merits was adjudicated.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37819 RSA No. 1098 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1098 OF 2021 (SP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI R N RAMACHANDRAIAH SETTY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS..

¶9

1(a) NAGALAKSHMI N.R.

¶10

W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA.N AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶11

R/O 191, OPPOSITE ANJANEYA TEMPLE AVATHI DEVNAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL-562 110.

¶12

1(b) GEETHA LAKSHMI

¶13

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

W/O LATE SATHYA NARAYANN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O 693, BASAVANGUDI ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101

¶16

1(c) RAJESHWARI B.G

¶17

C/O B.R.GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O 810, WARD NO.17, A AGASARA BEEDI KOTE CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101

¶18

1(d) T.R.NIRMALADEVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O 972/2, WARD 6 NEAR GOVT LADIES HOSTEL CHIKKABALLAPUR -562 101

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37819 RSA No. 1098 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

1(e) R.DHANA LAKSHMI W/O A NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO.13, WARD NO.6 2^ND CROSS ROAD MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, M.G.ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR -562 101

¶22

BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA GUPTA S/O P.SRIRANGA SETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS MERCHANT GUPTA HARDWARE B.B.ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPUR -562 101

¶23

SRI P R SURYA PRAKASH S/O RANGAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT DHARMACHATRA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR CITY CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI. K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶26

SRI THOMAS KUTTY S/O JOSEPH JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PUTEN KALAM KANNADY POST, PIUM CUNNOO ALLEPEY DISTRICT KERALA STATE-578701

¶27

SRI MATHEW JOSEPH S/O JOSEPH JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O SUPREME TILES AND BRICKS FACTORY TIRNAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:37819 RSA No. 1098 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

(R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SMT.SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶33

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.12/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO. 12/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., CHIKKABALLAPUR.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

After addressing the arguments for some considerable amount of time, an application under Section 151 CPC r/w Order 23 Rule 1 CPC is filed, requesting the Court to permit the appellants to withdraw the appeal.

¶38

Application is supported by affidavit of one of the legal representatives of deceased first appellant on record namely, Smt. T.R. Nirmala Devi. She has stated that appellants

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:37819 RSA No. 1098 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

are not interested in prosecuting the appeal further. Therefore,

¶43

sought for permission to withdraw the appeal.

¶44

In fact, a memo would have suffice for withdrawal

¶45

of the appeal, instead an application is filed.

¶46

Counsel for respondent Smt. Shruthi Chaganti for contesting respondent No.2 has no objection to allow the application.

¶47

Since the appellants are the masters of the appeal

¶48

and not interested in prosecuting the appeal, even though application is a surplusage on record, permission to withdraw can be accorded unconditionally, though Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is pressed into service.

¶49