Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77581 (KAR)

M/S JANSONS INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD v. SRI C M GANGARAJU

MFA/7575/2025 · 2025-10-24

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42389 MFA No. 7575 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7575 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. JANSONS INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT: NO.119/120, 2ND FLOOR COMMERCIAL STREET BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. MOUZZAM JAN 2. MR MOUZZAM JAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE SRI AZAM JAN R/AT NO.84, BENSON CROSS ROAD BENSON TOWN BANGALORE - 560 046 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. C.M. GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O. SRI. MALLAPA RESIDING AT NO. 2/3 RBI QUARTERS NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 040 2. SRI. H.V. SHIVASHANKAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS AGED MAJOR THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. HMV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. NO.509, 12TH A MAIN ROAD A SECTOR, NEW TOWN YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42389 MFA No. 7575 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO. 743/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING IA NOs. I AND II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The subject matter of the suit is valued below Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court. 2. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable before this Court. However, liberty is reserved to the appellants 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 documents to the appellants/counsel for the appellants. Sd/̲ (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA, CT-SG