Dismissed¶¶49

K R Balasubramaniam v. Manjula H

Karnataka HC30 Jun 2026MFA/8617/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Pradeep Singh Yerur J, 30.06.2026), MFA No. 8617/2025 (CPC) — K.R. Balasubramaniam & others v. Manjula H. & M/s. Brigade Enterprises Ltd. Appeal against common order dt. 17.10.2025 on I.A. Nos.2 & 3 in O.S. No.335/2025 (Nelamangala) dismissed as infructuous after plaint rejected dt. 09.02.2026 under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC following plaintiff's failure to comply with Order VII Rule 1(i). Keywords: rejection of plaint, Order VII Rule 11, Order VII Rule 1(i), infructuous appeal, memo, Order XLIII Rule 1(R), Section 151 CPC, Nelamangala.

What did the court decide?

In view of the memo filed by learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal does not survive for consideration. ¶¶48

K R Balasubramaniam Vs Manjula H — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32288 MFA No. 8617 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8617 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K.R. BALASUBRAMANIAM S/O. LATE. K. S. RAMAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶9

K. B. SUJATHA W/O. K. R. BALASUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶10

K. B. RENUKA D/O. K. R. BALASUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶11

K.B. RAGHAVENDRA RAVIKANTH S/O. K. R. BALASUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶12

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

¶13

K. R. UMESH BABU S/O. LATE. K. S. RAMAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶14

K. U. RADHIKA W/O. UMESH BABU K.R AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶15

K. U. ROHIT S/O. UMESH BABU K.R. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶16

K. U. ABHIRAM S/O. UMESH BABU K.R. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32288 MFA No. 8617 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

K. R. HARINATH S/O. LATE RAMAN K.S. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶20

K. H. LAKSHMI W/O. K. R. HARINATH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶21

K. H. VISHRUTH SAI RAM S/O. K. R. HARINATH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶22

K. H. VRUSHANK S/O. K. R. HARINATH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶23

ALL RESIDING AT NO.222A/1 13^TH CROSS ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 086.

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI ASHOK B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

MANJULA H.

¶28

W/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O. BINNAMANGALA KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562 123.

¶29

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER.

¶30

KANTHRAJ B. M. S/O. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O. NO.4, BINNAMANGALA NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562 123.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32288 MFA No. 8617 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED HAVING ITS COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.29^TH AND 30^TH FLOOR WORLD TRADE CENTRE' BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS BENGALURU, NO.26/1 DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESHWARAM RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 055 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SRI AMAR MYSORE.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.2 & 3 IN O.S.NO.335/2025 BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

Learned counsel for appellants has filed a memo,

¶40

which reads as under:

¶41

"It is submitted that, in pursuance of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 16-12-2025, the Trial Court posted the suit for compliance of the Order VII Rule 1(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure on 19-01-2026, 21-01-2026, 24-01-2026, 02-02-2026, 05-02-2026, 06-02-2026 and on 09-02-2026.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:32288 MFA No. 8617 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The respondent/plaintiff failed to comply with the above said provision. Consequently, as per Order VII Rule 11(b), the plaint in O.S.No.335/2025 was rejected by order dated 09.02.2026.

¶46

Wherefore, the above appeal does not survive for consideration."

¶47