Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 81062 (KAR)

SRI MAHESH v. SMT MAHESHAMMA

CRP/83/2024 · 2025-12-01

V Srishananda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49810 CRP No. 83 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 83 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI MAHESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA NO.317 8TH CROSS, J C NAGAR MYSORE-570 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S SUBHASH ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MAHESHAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O PARASHIVAPPA LAKKUR VILLAGE TIRAKANAMBADI HOBLI GUNDLUPET TALUK 2. SMT SAMPATHAMMA W/O BASAVANNA KUNDUKERE VILLAGE TIRAKANAMBADI VILLAGE GUNDLUPET TALUK 3. SMT NAGAMMA W/O TANDUMURTHY Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49810 CRP No. 83 of 2024 KOTHALVADI VILLAGE HARAVA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK 4. SRI SWAMY @ MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE DEVAPPA 5. SMT SOWBHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O SWAMY @ MAHADEVPPA 6. SMT PALLAVI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O SWAMY @ MAHADEVAPPA 7. SMT SHAMBHAVI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O SWAMY @ MAHADEVAPPA 8. SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O SWAMY @ MAHADEVAPPA RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 8 ARE R/AT BALACHAWADI VILLAGE TIRAKANAMBADI HOBLI GUNDLUPET TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.C. NAGARAJ FOR R1 TO R3., ADVOCATE (VAKALATH NOT FILED) V/O DTD.12/02/2025 NOTICE TO R4 TO R8 IS D/W) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, DECLARE THAT THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.18/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET, IS NOT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49810 CRP No. 83 of 2024 MAINTAINABLE IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PLAINT IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 119(A) AND (D) OF THE CPC 1908 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. On perusal of the data from National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), the suit before the court below stood dismissed as uncontested. 3. Therefore, the present revision petition would not survive for further consideration. 4. Hence, petition stands dismissed as it has rendered infructuous. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KLY CT: JL