Karnataka High Court
MFA/2889/2026 of MR.M.SRINIVAS Vs MRS P VIJAYALAKSHMI on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010272272026 NC: 2026:KHC:52583 MFA No. 2889 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2889 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: MR. M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 51
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2889 OF 2026 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. M. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. SRI MUNIYAPPA
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.183
NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA
BANGALORE - 560 068
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI GURUVA REDDY N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MRS. P. VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O. LATE P.V.KAMESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
2.
MS. P.K. VAISHNAVI
D/O. LATE P.V. KAMESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
3.
MR. P.K. HARISH KUMAR
S/O. LATE P.V. KAMESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT:
NO.B-2195, PRESTIGE SUNRISE PARK
ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-1
BENGALURU - 560 100.
4.
MRS. Y. ANURADHA
D/O. LATE Y. NAGESHWAR RAO.
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA M
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
5.
MR. Y. RAVINDRANATH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O. LATE Y. NAGESHWAR RAO.
NOS.4 AND 5 ARE
RESIDING AT: NO.H.NO.4-2-1071,
RAMKOTE, HYDERABAD - 500 001.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) OF
CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2026 PASSED ON
IA.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1440/2022 BY LXVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for appellant submits that pursuant to the impugned order dated 12.03.2026, the plaint came to be rejected on 18.06.2026, which is now the subject matter of challenge in RFA.No.1705/2026. Therefore, technically, the present appeal would not survive for consideration, as the original suit before the trial Court is no longer in existence in view of the rejection of the plaint.
2. However, learned counsel for appellant submits that in the event the appellant succeeds in the Regular
HC-KAR
First Appeal and the suit is restored, liberty may be reserved to the appellant to seek revival of the present appeal. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach this Court for revival of the present appeal, in the event of the suit being restored.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
Liberty is reserved to the appellant to seek revival of this appeal in the event he succeeds in the Regular First Appeal.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance.
Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10