- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36577 MFA No. 2889 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2889 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) BYLAPPA S/O. ANJINAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SMT MUNIRATNAMMA W/O LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 1(b) SMT KAVITA, D/O LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 1(c) SMT VINUTHA, D/O LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 1(d) SRI MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 1(e) SRI VIDHYASAGAR, S/O LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 2. SMT MUNIAYAMMA, D/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT KEMPALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36577 MFA No. 2889 of 2025 KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. LAXMINARAYAN N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SAKAMMA W/O MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. SRI MARIAH S/O MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3. SMT KEMPAMMA D/O MUNIMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 4. SRI MANJUNATH S/O MUNIMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 5. SMT MALASHRI, D/O MUNIMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT HURULIHLLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANAGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 6. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT KEMPALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANAGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36577 MFA No. 2889 of 2025 7. SMT GAJALAKSHMAMMA AGE 55 YEARS W/O LATE SHREERAMAIAH 8. SRI LOKESH AGE 55 YEARS W/O LATE SHREERAMAIAH RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT MADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADANOOR POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2025 PASSED IN M.A.NO. 137/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The office has raised objection that appeal is not maintainable since the appellants have already exhausted remedy of appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC. Therefore, one more appeal before this Court under the same provision is not maintainable. This is the objection raised by the office. 2. The Office is correct in raising the objection. M.A.No.137/2020 is filed before the Court of IX Addl. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36577 MFA No. 2889 of 2025 District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rurual District, Bengaluru under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC. Therefore, the remedy is already exhausted under Order XLIII. Therefore, the instant appeal under the same provision is not maintainable. 3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach before the appropriate Forum as per law. 4. 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. 5. Registry is directed to return all the original copies to the appellant. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29