- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50582 MFA No. 3775 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3775 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RAJAMMA W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT MAJARA, CHINTHAKAYALA HALLI, (SOMESHWARA) VILLAGE, SOMENAHALLI HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST, &APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARVIND C. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KASAVAGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE MANDIKALLU HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK DIST., 2. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O. LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. SMT. NARASAMMA, D/O. LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SMT. RAMA, D/O. LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SL. NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT MAJARA CHINTHAKAYALA HALLI, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50582 MFA No. 3775 of 2025 (SOMESHWARA) VILLAGE SOMENAHALLI HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST., 5. KUM. GANAVI, D/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 6. KUM. GAGAMASHREE D/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, 7. MASTER. GAGANKUMAR, S/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AND 7 ARE THE MINORS, AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER BY NAME SMT. NARASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT PERESANDRA VILLAGE, MANDIKALLU HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST. &RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO 1 IN OS.NO.768/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND GUDIBANDE, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50582 MFA No. 3775 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The value of the suit is below Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is maintainable before the District Court as per Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964. 2. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable before this Court. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file appeal before the District Court. 3. The time spent for prosecuting the appeal before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. Registry is directed to return all the original copies to the appellant/counsel for the appellant . SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18