Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 67262 (KAR)

M G JAIRAM v. M.G. RAVISHANKAR

CRP/665/2025 · 2025-11-06

V Srishananda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44924 CRP No. 665 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 665 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M.G.JAIRAM, S/O LATE M.N.GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT HALAVATTI, MAKKIMANE, BELLANDUR VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI POST, SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 139. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHEERAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M.G.RAVISHANKAR, S/O LATE M.N.GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT MAKKIMANE, BELLANDUR VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI POST, SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 139. 2. M.G.SHRIDHAR RAO, S/O LATE M.N.GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT 806, 'SAHYADRI', 6TH 'A' MAIN, ISRO LAYOUT, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44924 CRP No. 665 of 2025 BENGALURU - 560 078. 3. M.G.NAGARAJ, S/O LATE M.N.GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO. 410, 4TH ‘A’ MAIN, 1ST STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, H.S.R LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043. 4. M.G.SUDHINDRA, S/O LATE M.N.GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT 'GANESH', NO. 85, 3RD MAIN ROAD, III STAGE, VINAYAKA EXTENSION, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. 5. HEMA R.RAO, W/O RAJAGOPAL RAO, D/O LATE M.N.GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT G-10, CRISENT MAGNA, NO. 32, 6TH CROSS, ATMANANDA COLONY, SULTAN PALYA, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. 6. VEENA KALKURA, W/O RAMAKRISHNA KALKURA, D/O LATE M.N.GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NABIEEN ELECTRICS, NEAR A.I.R, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI - 572 613. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44924 CRP No. 665 of 2025 7. UMA M. G., W/O VENKATESH N., D/O LATE M.N.GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, R/AT NO. 4143, 14TH FLOOR, TOWER 4, PRESTIGE MIST WATERS, KEMPAPURA MAIN ROAD, OUTER RING ROAD, HEBBALA, BENGALURU - 560 024. 8. KUM. VANI M. G., D/O LATE M.N.GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, C/O UMA M.G. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, R/AT NO. 4143, 14TH FLOOR, TOWER 4, PRESTIGE MIST WATERS, KEMPAPURA MAIN ROAD, OUTER RING ROAD, HEBBALA, BENGALURU - 560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. I IN RA NO. 62/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, REJECTING THE IA NO. I FILED U/S. 5 OF LIMITATION ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44924 CRP No. 665 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel Sri. Dheeraj for Sanathkumar Shetty.K, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Sri. S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is present. 2. The order under Revision is the dismissal of the first appeal R.A.No.62/2025 on the ground of limitation. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition are as under: (a) Revision petitioner is the appellant before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.62/2025. Said appeal was filed challenging the decree for partition and separate possession in respect of the joint family property in O.S.No.67/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikkamagalur. (b) Admittedly, the appeal was filed belatedly. Therefore an application for condonation of delay was filed in the said appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44924 CRP No. 665 of 2025 (c) Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal also came to be dismissed. 4. Dismissal of the appeal even on the grounds of limitation amounts to a decree. 5. Therefore, no Civil Revision Petition is maintainable challenging the validity of the dismissal order. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 CT:SS