Dismissed

Smt. Puttathayamma, v. Ningegowda

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2026MFA/6630/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal challenged an order dismissing an application for additional time under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC. The registry objected to maintainability due to a subject value below 10 lakhs. The Court sustained the objection and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty reserved to move the appropriate forum.

Smt. Puttathayamma, Vs Ningegowda — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:35023 MFA No. 6630 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6630 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PUTTATHAYAMMA, W/O LATE RACHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶8

SMT. RAJAMANI D/O LATE RACHEGOWDA AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶9

SRI R. SHASHIDHAR S/O LATE RACHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE ALL R/AT MANIGERE VILLAGE C.A.KERE HOBLI 571430 MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAMESH M V.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

NINGEGOWDA S/O LATE MUDDIRACHEGOWDA

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35023 MFA No. 6630 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

@ KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶19

CHANDRAMMA BIN S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY W/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT CHOTTANAHALI VILLAGE GG PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571430

¶20

SRI SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE MUDDIRACHEGOWDA @KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶21

SRI K RACHAIAH S/O LATE MUDDIRACHEGOWDA @KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶22

SMT GOWRAMMA S/O LATE SIDDARAJU AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶23

DEFENDANT NO.1,3,4 AND 5 ARE R/AT KENCHANADODDI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI, CHOTTANAHALLI POST, 2ND RANGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571430

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 18.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35023 MFA No. 6630 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

O.S.NO. 138/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

¶33

The registry has raised an objection with regard

¶34

to the maintainability of this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the subject value of the appeal is less than 10 lakhs. In view of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Court Act, the appeal is not maintainable.

¶35

The objection raised by the registry is

¶36

sustained, and the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is accepted.

¶37

The appeal is dismissed as not

¶38

maintainable.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:35023 MFA No. 6630 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Liberty is reserved to the appellants to move

¶43

the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. The time spent herein shall be condoned, if any such proceedings are filed.

¶44

Certified copies of the documents produced shall be returned to the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶45

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶46

RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Smt. Puttathayamma, v. Ningegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Puttathayamma, v. Ningegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Rajani Kumar Vs Sri Manjunath C

Smt.Roopa Vs Smt.Ammayya

Sri. L Eshwaraiah Vs Sri B J Anjanamurthy

Sri Muniraju Vs Smt Narayanamma

Sri H G Krishnashetty Vs Sri H K Indumathi

Sri B S Ranganath Vs the Commissioner