Dismissed¶¶45

M/S Ittina Properties Private Limited v. Sri Jagadish N

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2026RFA/133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Jagadish .N & Anr. — RFA 133/2024 (HC-Kar, Bengaluru, 06.02.2026, NC: 2026:KHC:7253-DB): appeal under Section 96 CPC against decree dated 10.10.2023 in O.S.No.419/2016; dismissed as withdrawn on parties' out-of-court settlement memo.

What did the court decide?

Appeal permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to the appellants' settlement memo; no costs mentioned. ¶¶45

Why is it important?

M/S Ittina Properties Private Limited Vs Sri Jagadish N — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7253-DB R.F.A. No.133/2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.133/2024 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

M/S ITTINA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.380 OPPOSITE CPWD QUARTERS II BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560034 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶11

MANU ITTINA S/O LATE MAHABALESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS DIRECTOR

¶12

M/S ITTINA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED NO.380, OPPOSITE CPWD QUARTERS II BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560034.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. NABEEL, ADV., FOR SRI. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. JAGADISH .N S/O LATE NARASHIMHACHAR .N AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.4214, MOSS COVE CT SUGAR LAND, TX 77479

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:7253-DB R.F.A. No.133/2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. TEJASH .N S/O LATE NARASIMHACHAR .N AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.1180, 1ST MAIN BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU 560097.

¶21

MONA ITTINA

¶22

D/O LATE MAHABALESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS DIRECTOR M/S ITTINA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED NO.380, OPPOSITE CPWD QUARTERS II BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560034.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SANJAY KUMAR A, ADV., FOR R1 (GPA HOLDER OF R1) V/O/DTD:22.07.2024 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.419/2016 ON THE FILE OF LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE AND TO DISMISS THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFF BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL & ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:7253-DB R.F.A. No.133/2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo

¶34

dated seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal.

¶35

Memo reads as under:

¶36

"The Appellant most respectfully submits as follows:

¶37

1. The above Regular First Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 10/10/2023 passed in O.S.No.419/2016 on the file of LXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore.

¶38

2. It is submitted that, during the pendency of the above appeal, the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court. In view of the said settlement, the Appellants does not wish to prosecute the appeal further.

¶39

3. The Appellant therefore seeks permission of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above appeal as settled out of Court.

¶40

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the Appellant to withdraw the above Regular First Appeal as settled out of Court, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶41