Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt. A.P. Lakshmidevi Vs Sri. A.P. Vishnumurthy — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt. A.P. Lakshmidevi Vs Sri. A.P. VishnumurthySmt. A.P. Lakshmidevi v. Sri. A.P. Vishnumurthy

Dismissed¶33

Smt. A.P. Lakshmidevi v. Sri. A.P. Vishnumurthy

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026RSA/344/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 344 of 2023 under Section 100 CPC; decision date 03.02.2026; single judge Ravi V Hosmani; second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution: appellant absent on call, office objections un-complied for 4th time despite opportunity even on cost, cost unpaid, appellant not diligently pursuing appeal; impugned order: judgment/decree dated 18.07.2022 in RA No.37/2022, Principal Judge (District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru), confirming decree dated 31.10.2019 in OS No.13/2018, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura (itinerate at Koppa); appellant Smt. A.P. Lakshmidevi represented by H.R. Santhosh (absent) versus respondents A.P. Vishnumurthy, A.P. Vivekananda, A.P. Ganapaiah Nayak, deceased Smt. Rajamma (by heirs R1-R3), E.V. Benni, Shashikala, A.V. Shashvathi, A.V. Siddanth, J Srisha R. Shetty; no cases cited, no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

There was no representation for the appellant when the matter was passed over and called again; the matter stood listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for the fourth time, and despite sufficient opportunity having been granted earlier, even on cost, the office objections remained un-complied and the cost was not paid, indicating that the appellant was not diligently pursuing the appeal. ¶33

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Ratio / Principle

There was no representation for the appellant when the matter was passed over and called again; the matter stood listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for the fourth time, and despite sufficient opportunity having been granted earlier, even on cost, the office objections remained un-complied and the cost was not paid, indicating that the appellant was not diligently pursuing the appeal.

Key takeaways

On the ground of non-prosecution, the appeal proceedings were brought to an end; the judgment closes with the notation 'non-prosecution.' immediately above the Judge's signature, supporting dismissal of the appeal rather than adjudication on the merits.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal No. 344 of 2023 (High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Ravi V Hosmani, J.) filed under Section 100 CPC by Smt. A.P. Lakshmidevi against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2022 in RA No.37/2022 (Principal Judge / District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru), which was described as dismissing the suit and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 in OS No.13/2018 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura, itinerate at Koppa). When the matter was called there was no representation for the appellant, whose counsel was recorded as absent. Office objections remained un-complied for the fourth listing despite sufficient opportunity, even after imposition of cost, and the cost was not paid. Finding that the appellant was not diligently prosecuting the appeal, the Court closed the judgment with the notation 'non-prosecution.', disposing of the second appeal without adjudicating any substantive issue arising from the underlying suit. Decision dated 3 February 2026; no precedent engaged and no quantum awarded.

A

NC: 2026:KHC:6417 RSA No. 344 of 2023

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE K. RAJESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT HOSAKERE, SURYADEVASTHANA POST, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMGALURU DISTRICT - 577 126.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. H. R. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE (ABSENT) )

AND:

SRI. A.P. VISHNUMURTHY S/O SRI. PUTTENAYAK, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. A.P. VIVEKANANDA S/O SRI. PUTTENAYAK, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

SRI A.P. GANAPAIAH NAYAK S/O SRI PUTTENAYAK, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O SRI PUTTENAYAK, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS I.E., RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6417 RSA No. 344 of 2023

HC-KAR

SRI E. V. BENNI S/O SRI VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O EDASSERY HOUSE, NADAVAYAL POST, SULTHANBATTERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.

PRESENT ADDRESS: HIREKUDIGE VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 126.

SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O SRI VISHNUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

SMT. A.V. SHASHVATHI D/O SRI VISHNUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

SRI A.V. SIDDANTH S/O VISHNUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

RESPONDNT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 7 ARE R/AT ALIGE, SURYADEVASTHANA, HIREKUDIGE VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 126.

SRI J SRISHA R. SHETTY S/O RATNAKARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT SHOBHA SHREE, MURUDESHWARA LAYOUT, BINTRAVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 126

…RESPONDENTS

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6417 RSA No. 344 of 2023

HC-KAR

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.07.2022 PASSED IN RA NO.37/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.13/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R. PURA, ITINERATE AT KOPPA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation for appellant. Matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for 4^th time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, even on cost, office objections remained un-complied and cost is also not paid. This would indicate that appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal.

non-prosecution.

Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

LDC:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT-SG

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908100¶30

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 18.07.2022 in RA No.37/2022 passed by the Principal Judge (District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru), described as dismissing the suit and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 in OS No.13/2018.¶30
Principal Judge (District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru) · 18.07.2022
Prior proceeding
Original suit OS No.13/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura (itinerate at Koppa); judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019, which the first appellate court is described as having confirmed.¶30
Prior proceeding
First appeal RA No.37/2022 before the Principal Judge (District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru); judgment and decree dated 18.07.2022, challenged in the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.¶30

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Smt. A.P. Lakshmidevi W/o Late K. Rajeshwar¶9
H. R. Santhosh
respondent
Sri. A.P. Vishnumurthy S/o Sri. Puttenayak¶13
respondent
Sri. A.P. Vivekananda S/o Sri. Puttenayak¶15
respondent
Sri A.P. Ganapaiah Nayak S/o Sri Puttenayak¶16
respondent
Smt. Rajamma W/o Sri Puttenayak (since dead, represented by her legal heirs, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 3)¶17
respondent
Sri E.V. Benni S/o Sri Varghese¶20
respondent
Smt. Shashikala W/o Sri Vishnumurthy¶22
respondent
Smt. A.V. Shashvathi D/o Sri Vishnumurthy¶23
respondent
Sri A.V. Siddanth S/o Vishnumurthy¶24
respondent
Sri J Srisha R. Shetty S/o Ratnakara Shetty¶26

Coram

AI extract

Ravi V Hosmaniauthor¶31

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 3 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 15 Feb 2023
Case no.: RSA/344/2023
CNR: KAHC010088432023
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
Disposal: Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
Case type: Regular Second Appeal

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ravi V Hosmani

Smt Gowramma Vs Sri H M Ramesh
2 Feb 2026
Sri Gurumurthy Vs Smt Gangamma
2 Feb 2026
Smt Chikkathayamma Vs Sri Ramaiah
2 Feb 2026
Smt. Sarojamma Vs Sri Krishnegowda
3 Feb 2026
Sri Venkategowda Vs Smt Kempamma
3 Feb 2026
Lakshminarayana Vs Smt. Sukanya
3 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt. A.P. Lakshmidevi v. Sri. A.P. Vishnumurthy, RSA/344/2023 (KA), decided on 3 February 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908100

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Judgment and decree dated 18.07.2022 in RA No.37/2022 passed by the Principal Judge (District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru), described as dismissing the suit and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 in OS No.13/2018.Principal Judge (District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru) · 18.07.2022
Original suit OS No.13/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R. Pura (itinerate at Koppa); judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019, which the first appellate court is described as having confirmed.
First appeal RA No.37/2022 before the Principal Judge (District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru); judgment and decree dated 18.07.2022, challenged in the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Ravi V Hosmani

Parties & counsel