Sri. Prasad G V vs Smt. Naveena Kumari
2021 Latest Caselaw 1505 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

                            BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.418 OF 2018


BETWEEN:


SRI PRASAD G.V.
S/O G. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT #213, SAISADAN
RAMA FARM COMPOUND
LAKSHMIPURA
VIDYARANAYAPURA POST
BENGALURU-560 097.
                                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     SMT. NAVEENA KUMARI
       W/O SRI M. NARAYANASWAMY
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
       R/AT LAKSHIMPURA
       YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI
       CHIKKABANAVARA POST
       BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
       BENGALURU-560 097.

2.     ANJANEYA
       S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA
                                           RFA No.418/2018
                            2


     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
     R/AT NO.10/179, BLOCK 23
     PAPER TOWN
     BHADRAVATHI-577 302.

3.   MANJUNATH
     S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
     R/AT ABBIGERE
     YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI
     CHIKKABANAVARA POST
     BENGALURU-560 090.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS




     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
11.11.2016 PASSED IN EX.NO.1589/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE
CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-8), BENGALURU, REJECTING THE
I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 58 R/W.SEC.151 OF
CPC, ETC.


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                        JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant is appearing

through video conference and justifies the action of filing

RFA 700/2017 during the pendency of the present appeal RFA No.418/2018

and submits that he has not suppressed any fact since he

has disclosed about the pendency of the present RFA in its

earlier No. MFA 8524/2016 before this Court. Learned

counsel submits that since there was an error in

mentioning a provision of law, he decided to file a fresh

Regular First Appeal. As such, he has filed the present

RFA 700/2017.

2. Admittedly, both these Regular First Appeals

are filed challenging the very same impugned order. Even

according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the

earlier challenge to the impugned order was through an

MFA 8524/2016 which subsequently was re-numbered as

RFA 418/2018. In the meantime, even according to the

present appellant, he filed one more Regular First

Appeal against the same impugned order bearing

No. RFA 700/2017. Thus, even after filing RFA 700/2017,

for some time both Regular First Appeals were

simultaneously pending in this Court.

RFA No.418/2018

3. The appellant was expected to withdraw the

present Regular First Appeal if he was not willing to

continue with the present Regular First Appeal and

intended to file a fresh Regular First Appeal, reserving

liberty to file a fresh Regular First Appeal. Accordingly

thereafter he could have proceeded to file RFA 700/2017.

However, by maintaining both the Regular First Appeals

simultaneously for consideration of the Court for some

time, he has caused inconvenience to the Court which also

could be termed as improper use of the procedural law to

some extent. Therefore, I am of the view that the memo

dated 20.01.2021 for withdrawal of the present appeal be

allowed but however, with a cost.

Accordingly, the said memo dated 20.01.2021 is

allowed with a cost of `500/- payable to the Legal Services

Committee of this Court by the appellant within a week

from today and filing a compliance memo along with receipt

within eight days from today. Subject to the payment of RFA No.418/2018

the cost, present RFA 418/2018 stands dismissed as not

pressed.

A copy of this order be also placed in RFA 700/2017

and be brought to the notice of the Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sac*