Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33037 (KAR)

K HEMA PRAKASH v. KASHI V MANJUNTH

MSA/21/2020 · 2025-06-09

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19514 MSA No. 21 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. K. HEMA PRAKASH W/O LATE K.V. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. K. SHREYAS PRAKASH S/O K.V. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3. SHRUTHI PRAKASH D/O K V PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT M/S. EGG CENTRE NO.147, MAKAI COMPLEX A R COMPOUND, MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-560 026. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. KSHAMA NARGUND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KASHI V. MANJUNTH S/O LATE VISHWANATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O 4033, EMERALD ISLE SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95135 USA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19514 MSA No. 21 of 2020 REPRESENTED BY HIS P.A.HOLDER SRI.VEERANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE R.V.GOPALAKRISHNA SHETTY NICE ICE SINKEES PIZZA CORNER No.162/2, 3RD MAIN, P.J.EXTENSION DAVANAGERE-577001. 2. K.V. SHASHIKUMAR R/O B.H.ROAD ARASIKERE 3. DR. K.V. RAMESH S/O LATE KASHI VISHWANATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.16 ‘KASHI NIVASA’ GAVIPURAM EXTENTION, 2ND CROSS BENGALURU-560019. 4. H.K. SHANTA KESHAVA W/O H.V. KESHAVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BALAJI ELECTRONICS DODDAPET TIPTUR-572114. 5. B.S. RAJESHWARI W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.77/2, 3RD MAIN ROAD, HANMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560019. 6. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O SUBHASH NAGAR, ARASIKERE-573103. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19514 MSA No. 21 of 2020 7. NAGA VISHNESH S/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O SHANTI NIVASA B.H. ROAD ARASIKERE-573103. 8. TAHSILDAR B.H. ROAD ARASIKERE-573103. 9. TALUK SURVEYOR ARASIKERE-573103. 10. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C. OFFICE HASSAN-573201. 11. THE CHIEF OFFICER MUNICIPALITY ARASIKERE-573103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.T.H.AVIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. GURUSWAMY B.S., AGA FOR R8 TO 10; SMT. VIDYA SELVAMONY, ADVOCATE FOR R11; R4 TO R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2016 PASSED IN FDP NO.7/2007ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 54 OF CPC.THE APPELLATE COURT DIRECTED THE TRIAL COURT TO RESTORE THE FDP NO.7/2007 ON ITS BOARD AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTIES TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IF PARTIES DESIRE, THEN PROCEED TO PASS THE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19514 MSA No. 21 of 2020 FINAL DECREE AS PER OBSERVATION MADE SUPRA, SUBJECT TO PAY NECESSARY COURT FEE BY APPELLANT/PETITIONER. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The learned counsel for the appellants files memo seeking permission of this court to withdraw the appeal. It is stated in the memo that the appellant Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.1 have entered into settlement on the advice of the well wishers and copy of the settlement agreement dated 05.06.2025 is also placed on record along with the memo and seeks permission to workout the remedy before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Arsikere in FDP No.07/2007. 2. It appears that respondent No.2 is not a party to the agreement and whatever the agreement entered between the appellant Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.1 would not affect the rights of the respondent No.2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19514 MSA No. 21 of 2020 3. The learned counsel for the appellants filed an application to bring the LRs’ of deceased respondent No.3 on record as R3(A to C). In view of filing of memo seeking permission to withdraw and also sought permission to workout the remedy in the FDP and if necessary, they can be brought on record in FDP proceedings. Hence, I.A.No.1/2024, I.A.No.2/2024 and I.A.No.3/2024 are not survives for consideration before this court. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1