Smt N G Srilakshmi v. Sri a R Nazeer Ahmed

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2026MFA/7216/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; NC: 2026:KHC:30945; MFA No. 962/2016 c/w MFAs 5318, 6576, 6577, 7216/2016; Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC appeals; temporary injunction application Order 39 Rules 1 & 2; Order 39 Rule 4; Section 151 CPC; appeals dismissed as infructuous; original suits disposed 20.02.2023; duty of counsel to inform Court; State exchequer; O.S. Nos. 2325/2015, 2154/2015, 3013/15, 2260/15, 2413/15; Nanjundeshwara Developers; A.R. Nazeer Ahmed; Pradeep Singh Yerur J.; oral judgment dated 22 June 2026.

What did the court decide?

All five miscellaneous first appeals (MFA Nos. 962, 5318, 6576, 6577 and 7216 of 2016) are dismissed, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, as having become infructuous. ¶¶107

Smt N G Srilakshmi Vs Sri a R Nazeer Ahmed — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶107

Issue for consideration

Whether the miscellaneous first appeals remained live for adjudication after the original suits before the trial Court were disposed of on 20.02.2023 (inferred from the Court's dismissal of the appeals as infructuous on that submission; no issues were formally framed in this short oral judgment).

¶¶103

Court's answer

¶¶107

Ratio / Principle

The ground of infructuity is learned counsel for the appellants' submission that the original suit(s) before the trial Court stood disposed of on 20.02.2023, which the Court records it had not been informed of earlier.

¶¶103

Key takeaways

Obiter observation: learned counsels are responsible officers of the Court in the process of administration of justice and part of the judicial system, and owe a duty and responsibility to inform the Court at the earliest time of developments such as disposal of the underlying suit, to avoid inconvenience and unnecessary expenditure to the State exchequer; the Court expressed that it failed to understand why the disposal was not informed to it.obiter¶¶103

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA Nos. 962, 5318, 6576, 6577 and 7216 of 2016 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Pradeep Singh Yerur J., 22.06.2026; NC: 2026:KHC:30945) — Five Miscellaneous First Appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against interlocutory orders of different Bengaluru City Civil Courts rejecting/dismissing IA No.1 moved under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 (r/w Section 151) CPC in O.S.Nos. 2325/2015, 2154/2015, 3013/15, 2260/15 and 2413/15, and (in O.S.Nos. 3013/15 and 2260/15) allowing IA No.4 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 (r/w Section 151) CPC; common respondents Sri A.R. Nazeer Ahmed and M/s Nanjundeshwara Developers. On the appeals coming up for orders, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the original suits had been disposed of on 20.02.2023. The Court, while observing that counsel owe a duty to inform the Court of such developments at the earliest to avoid inconvenience and unnecessary expenditure to the State exchequer, dismissed all the appeals as having become infructuous. No merits of the injunction orders were examined.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2016 (CPC) C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5318 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6576 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6577 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7216 OF 2016

¶9

IN MFA No. 962/2016

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

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

¶12

SRI. SINGAMANENI CHALAPATHY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. SRI. S. CHANDRAPPA, NO.B-004, ADARSH RHYTHAM APARTMENTS, NO.71, PANDURANGA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶13

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶14

SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. A. R. NAZEER AHMED

¶18

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. A.N. BASHA, NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶23

M/S. NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS

¶24

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085,

¶25

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. R.V. SUBRAMANYA.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 30.11.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.I IN O.S NO.2325/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶29

IN MFA NO. 5318/2016

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

SRI SADANANDA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI.NARAYANA HEGDE, NO.60, 1ST MAIN, IDEAD HOMES,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶36

...APPELLANT

¶37

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶38

SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

SRI A. R. NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O A.N.BHASHA, NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶41

M/S NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,

¶42

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085

¶43

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.R.V.SUBRAMANYA

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. M S VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶46

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2016 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO. 2154/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (C.C.H.16), DISMISSING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 CPC.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

IN MFA NO. 6576/2016

¶51

BETWEEN:

¶52

SRI H. N. VIDYASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O SRI.H.K.NANJUNDA SWAMY NO.3994/F, 17^TH 'D' CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶53

...APPELLANT

¶54

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

¶55

AND:

¶56

SRI A. R. NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O A.N. BHASHA, NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶57

M/S. NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.R.V. SUBRAMANYA

¶58

...RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SRI. M. S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 01.07.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.1 & IA NO.4 IN O.S.NO.3013/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1&2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, ALLOWING IA NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶64

IN MFA NO. 6577/2016

¶65

BETWEEN:

¶66

SMT. PARIMALA P. JOSHI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O SRI PRAMOD N. JOSHI R/O NO.206B-25, RICHGROVE DRIVE, TORONTO M9R OA3, CANADA REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.VAMAN B PATIL

¶67

...APPELLANT

¶68

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶69

SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

¶70

AND:

¶71

SRI A. R. NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O A.N.BASHA

¶72

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079

¶76

M/S NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.R.V.SUBRAMANYA

¶77

...RESPONDENTS

¶78

(BY SRI. M. S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

¶79

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.1 & IA NO.4 IN O.S.NO.2260/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1&2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, ALLOWING IA NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶80

IN MFA NO. 7216/2016

¶81

BETWEEN:

¶82

SMT N. G. SRILAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O SRI. A.N. NATARAJA, NO.1652, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, "A" BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE,

¶83

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶87

...APPELLANT

¶88

(BY MRS. PREETHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

¶89

AND:

¶90

SRI A. R. NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O A.N. BASHA, NO.88A, GRIHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶91

M/S NANJUNDESHWARA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.659, 2^ND PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085, REPARESENTD BY ITS MANAGING PAWRTNER SRI.R.V. SUBRAMANYA

¶92

...RESPONDENTS

¶93

(BY SRI. M. S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶94

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 14.01.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS.NO.2413/15 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1&2 OF CPC.

¶95

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶98

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶99

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶100

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶101

Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

¶102

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

¶103

the original suit before the trial Court was disposed of on 20.02.2023. This Court fails to understand why this was not informed to the Court. Learned counsels are responsible officers of the Court in the process of administration of justice and part of the judicial system and they owe a duty and responsibility to inform the Court at the earliest time to avoid any inconvenience and unnecessary expenditures to the state exchequer.

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:30945 MFA No. 962 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5318 of 2016 MFA No. 6576 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS

¶105

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

Nevertheless, the appeals are dismissed , taking note of

¶108

the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, as

¶109

having become infructuous.

¶110