Karnataka High Court
Sri Pramod Jois M B vs M/S Canfin Homes Pvt Ltd on 2 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34378
RFA No. 20 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.20 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PRAMOD JOIS M.B.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O BHASKAR JOIS
2. SMT. NAGALAKSHMI SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O SRI PRAMOD JOIS B.M.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.1341/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
GIRINAGARA,
BENGALURU-560085.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SRI SURABHI B.L., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. M/S. CANFIN HOMES PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.29/1,
SIR. M.N. KRISHNA RAO ROAD,
LALBAGH WEST
BENGALURU-560005
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34378
RFA No. 20 of 2022
HC-KAR
2. M/S. CANFIN HOMES PVT. LTD.,
NO.414, 2ND FLOOR,
POOJA COMPLEX,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
KRISHNARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560036
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
3. SRI RAGHAVENDRA AITHAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O SRI SEETHARAMA AITHAL
R/AT FLAT NO.302, PROPERTY NO.21
PRAMOD LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS,
8TH MAIN, PANTHARAPALYA POST,
BENGALURU-560039.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
NOTICE TO R-3 - RAGHAVENDRA AITHAL SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
10.03.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1595/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION
AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION, AS BARRED UNDER THE
PROVISION OF SECTION 34 OF SARFAESI ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:34378
RFA No. 20 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present regular first appeal is preferred by the
plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated
10.03.2021 in O.S. No.1595/2018 on the file of the XXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-
31) (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short). By
the judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the
suit, holding that the suit is barred by law under the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI
Act' for short).
2. The respondent-bank has filed a memo stating
that, pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the
respondent-bank under the SARFAESI Act, the property in
question was sold on 02.11.2022, and a sale certificate
has been issued in favour of one Sri S. Gnaneshwar S/o
late Siddappa .B.
NC: 2025:KHC:34378
HC-KAR
3. In light of the said memo filed and the issuance
of sale certificate in respect of the suit property, which
was subject-matter of the proceedings under the
SARFAESI Act, the appeal has become infructuous and
does not survive for consideration.
4. Accordingly, the regular first appeal stands
disposed of as having become infructuous. It is
however, made clear that it is open to the appellants to
avail themselves of such remedies as may be available in
law. The order of the Trial Court shall not preclude the
appellants from independently agitating their claim in
accordance with law, if so advised.
Sd/-
______________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MBM
