Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29234 (KAR)

SRI ABHISHEK JINDAL v. SMT INDRAMMA

MFA/4882/2024 · 2025-10-09

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4882 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. ABHISHEK JINDAL S/O SUSHIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT. NO.17, SHIVA SADAN LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU -560027 ..APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. HARSH S. PAREKH, DAFNY MONALISA DCUNHA, TEJAS KHIRAIYA, LOKPAL HANGAL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. INDRAMMA D/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. #826, CHIKKABALAPURA ROAD WARD NO.4, MARUTHI NAGARA VIJAYAPURA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK. 2. SMT. VIJAYAMMA D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA W/O VISHVANATHAREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT KOTHNUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK. MFA.No.4882/2024 ---------------------------- 2 3. SMT. BHAGYAKUMARI D/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. BEDIKERE VILLAGE THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK. 4. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE MUNIHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 5. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 6. SRI. SHRINIVASA @ SRINIVASA V. S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE R/AT KEMPATHIMANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK. ..RESPONDENTS This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed Under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC, against the Order dated 23.04.2024 passed on IA No.2 in O.S. No.874/2023 on the file of the III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI and C/C II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, allowing IA No.2 filed U/O 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/W Sec. 151 of CPC. MFA.No.4882/2024 ---------------------------- 3 This Miscellaneous First Appeal is coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: ORAL ORDER Two weeks’ time is granted to comply with the office objections. By that time, if the office objections are not complied with, the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. Sd/- JUDGE NOTE: Court Order dt.26.09.2024, not complied with. Hence, Appeal stands dismissed. COPY Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR T By: AR R By: YL C By: VL