Dismissed¶40

Khalid Mehmood Qureshi v. v Yogishwara

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026RFA/2524/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of appeal; RFA No. 2524 of 2024; High Court of Karnataka; Section 96 CPC; I.A.No.1/2026 allowed; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; OS.No.4989/2021; suit for declaration and permanent injunction; XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the appellants to withdraw the appeal (I.A.No.1/2026 allowed); the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. ¶40

Why is it important?

Khalid Mehmood Qureshi Vs v Yogishwara — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:26730 RFA No. 2524 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2524 OF 2024 (DEC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KHALID MEHMOOD QURESHI S/O SALAUDDIN MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶10

MOHAMMED FOZAN QURESHI S/O KHALID MEHMOOD QURESHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶11

BOTH EARLIER R/AT NO. 806, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 6/4-1, GROUND FLOOR, CAMPBELL CROSS ROAD, NEXT TO PHILOMENA HOSPITAL BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. DHIRAJ A.K, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

V. YOGISHWARA

¶18

S/O S.R. VENKATE GOWDA, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1018,

¶19

2^ND CROSS, K.N. EXTENSION

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26730 RFA No. 2524 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CHANDRODAYA SCHOOL ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 022.

¶23

GANGARAJA

¶24

S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHAKTHI HALLOW BLOCKS, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, LAKSHMI PURA, BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶25

M.G. RAMAKRISHNA

¶26

S/O GIDDIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 603, NEAR SBI BANK, MATHIKERE BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.4989/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:26730 RFA No. 2524 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants has filed

¶37

I.A.No.1/2026 to withdraw the appeal, which reads as under:

¶38

" That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the appellants to withdraw the above appeal in the interest of justice."

¶39

Hence, I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed.

¶40

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn .

¶41

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶42

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Khalid Mehmood Qureshi v. v Yogishwara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Khalid Mehmood Qureshi v. v Yogishwara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt D Sheela Pillai Vs Sri Syed Shabbir

Mrs Leena Issac Vs Mrs S Mounica

K L Vidyashankar Vs Janapriya Heights Flat Owners Association

Sri Junjapap K S Vs K S Munihanumaiah

M/S Uniq Detective and Security Services Private Limited Vs Sri C Balakrishna

M/S Unique Detective and Security Services Private Limited Vs Sri H R Linga Reddy