Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 43951 (KAR)

HOMEVISTA DECOR AND FURNISHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED v. LOVIT TYAGI

MFA/3335/2021 · 2026-09-24

Pradeep Singh Yerur

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010280982021 NC: 2026:KHC:53756 MFA No. 3335 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3335 OF 2021 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. HOMEVISTA DECOR AND FURNISHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED AWFIS, 3RD FLOOR, SAMRAH PLAZA SHANTHALA NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR ST MARKS ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MRS PARUL JAIN LEGAL MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. TARUNN SURANA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. LOVIT TYAGI S/O NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR R RESIDING AT F -502 ONE NORTH BY PANCHSHIL REALTY MAGARPATTA ANNEXE -A B G SHIRKE ROAD KIRTANE BAUGH Digitally signed by VINUTHA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010280982021 NC: 2026:KHC:53756 MFA No. 3335 of 2021 MAGARPATTA, HADAPSAR PUNE - 411028 MAHARASHTRA 2. DEEPIKA TYAGI W/ O LOVIT TYAGI AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT F -502 ONE NORTH BY PANCHSHIL REALTY MAGARPATTA ANNEXE -A B G SHIRKE ROAD KIRTANE BAUGH MAGARPATTA, HADAPSAR PUNE - 411028 MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJAY.J.N, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(A) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN OS.NO.25033/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 10 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSON, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010280982021 NC: 2026:KHC:53756 MFA No. 3335 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT A perusal of the online copy of the order sheet of the trial Court in O.S.No.25033/2020 depicts that the suit has been dismissed on 19.07.2021. The same is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Under the circumstances, the present appeal would not survive for consideration any more as the suit is no more in existence. 3. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19