Mrs. Fathima W/o. Peter Oliver, D/o. Basthew Gomes vs Mrs. Rita Evarist Gomes — 2/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O 43RULE1,RW 96. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED/REJECTED OTHERWISE on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KAUK320001312026

Filing Number

2/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

2/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL

Judge

1229-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Bhatkal

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED/REJECTED OTHERWISE

Last updated 19-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O 43RULE1,RW 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mrs. Fathima W/o. Peter Oliver, D/o. Basthew Gomes

    Adv. Rajavardhan N N

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Mrs. Rita Evarist Gomes

  2. 2.Sri. Paskal Evarist Gomes

  3. 3.Sri. Francis Evarist Gomes

  4. 4.Smt. Pracilla Luves Dsouza Gomes

  5. 5.Sri. Tony Evarist Gomes

  6. 6.Smt. Anthika Yane Andrik Modthin Gomes

  7. 7.Smt. Jujepin W/o. John Gomes D/o. Modtin Gomes

  8. 8.Smt. Nirmala D/o. Modthin Gomes

  9. 9.Sri. Pascal S/o. Modthin Gomes

  10. 10.Sri. Albert S/o. Modthin Gomes

  11. 11.Smt. Apolina Dias W/o. Anthon Dias

  12. 12.Smt. Asha W/o. Prakash Dias

  13. 13.Smt. Santan Lopes W/o. Farask Lopes

  14. 14.Smt. Milagrin Noronha W/o. Alpred

  15. 15.Sri. Andreg S/o. Aanand Anort

  16. 16.Smt. Sunita Rodrigues

  17. 17.Sri. Esperance Rolt

  18. 18.Sri. Madta B. Gomes

  19. 19.Smt. Mary Dsouza

  20. 20.Sri. John L. Gomes

  21. 21.Sri. Santhan Rodriques W/o. Baltidar

  22. 22.Smt. Christhin Dsouza W/o. Ruzar Dsouza

  23. 23.Smt. Teresa Tellis W/o. Savadox Tellis

  24. 24.Sri. Francis L. Gomes

  25. 25.Sri. Bastav S. Gomes

  26. 26.Smt. Marry W/o. Miranda

  27. 27.Vijay Costa Gomes

  28. 28.Vilford Costa Gomes

  29. 29.Viltan Costa Gomes

  30. 30.Mr. Richel Costa Gomes

  31. 31.Perpet Salvadar Louis

  32. 32.Kosav W/o. Alis Fernandes

  33. 33.Merry Farask Dsouza

  34. 34.Dumgi Paskal Gomes

  35. 35.Jimmy Pascal Gomes

  36. 36.Mrs. Sarita S. Leema

  37. 37.Silvan S/o. Pascal

  38. 38.Andres Manvel Mandoz

  39. 39.Merry Santa Telis

  40. 40.Reshma W/o. Raghavendra Poojari

  41. 41.Naveen S/o. Santa Telis

  42. 42.Mrs. Romita W/o. Nooyel Josheph

  43. 43.Silviya D/o. Santa Telis

  44. 44.Selita D/o. Santa Telis

  45. 45.Mr. Paskal S/o. Basthew Gomes

  46. 46.Mr. Francis Basthew Gomes

  47. 47.Mr. Anthony S/o. Basthew Gomes

  48. 48.Mr. Pavalu S/o. Bashew Gomes

  49. 49.Mr. Philif S/o. Bashew Gomes

  50. 50.Mr. Santhyaka S/o. Basthew Gomes

  51. 51.Mrs. Marry W/o. Juje Dsouza

  52. 52.Mrs. Renuka Yane Iri W/o. Balakrishna

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    The Senior Civil Judge of Bhatkal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (proposed defendant No. 45) as not maintainable because an order dismissing a suit as "not pressed" does not constitute a "decree" under Section 2(2) of the CPC and therefore cannot be appealed under Section 96 of the CPC. The court held that while the appellant had a right to pursue proper legal remedies, the present appeal was filed under the wrong procedural provision and was accordingly dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Bhatkal

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Bhatkal

  5. 04-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Bhatkal

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Bhatkal

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court, Bhatkal

  8. 09-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Senior Civil Judge of Bhatkal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (proposed defendant No. 45) as not maintainable because an order dismissing a suit as "not pressed" does not constitute a "decree" under Section 2(2) of the CPC and therefore cannot be appealed under Section 96 of the CPC. The court held that while the appellant had a right to pursue proper legal remedies, the present appeal was filed under the wrong procedural provision and was accordingly dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case