Smt. Radha W/o Krishna Shet, Age 63 Years, R/at Durgakeri, Honavar town, Tq-Honnavar vs Mahammad Ismail Shaikh, Age 75 Years, R/o Honavar kasaba Gundibail, Tq-Honnavar Advocate - Subramanya Manjunath Bhagawat — 8/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U.O 43, Rule 1(c) , r/w 141. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.
M.A. - MISCELLANUOUS APPEALS
CNR: KAUK610004482025
Filing Number
8/2025
Filing Date
03-11-2025
Registration No
8/2025
Registration Date
04-11-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR
Judge
526-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC HONAVARA
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Radha W/o Krishna Shet, Age 63 Years, R/at Durgakeri, Honavar town, Tq-Honnavar
Adv. Chandrashekar Gouda
Sri. Ajay Krishna Shet, Age 33 Years, R/at Durgakeri, Honavat Town, Tq-Honnavar
Respondent(s)
Mahammad Ismail Shaikh, Age 75 Years, R/o Honavar kasaba Gundibail, Tq-Honnavar Advocate - Subramanya Manjunath Bhagawat
Hamaza Ismail Shaikh, Age 69 Years, R/o Honavar Kasaba Gundibail, Tq-Honnavar
Hussain Ismail Shaikh, Age 54 Year, R/o Honnavar Kasaba Gundiabil, Tq-Honnavar
Ummar Ismail Shaikh, Age 50 Years, R/o Honnavar Kasaba Gundiabil, Tq-Honnavar
Smt. Salma @ Salimabi W/o Mohiddin Shaikh, Age 60 Years, R/o Sirsi Kotekere, Ramanbail, Near Primary School, Sirsi Taluk.
Hearing History
Judge: 526-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC HONAVARA
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-02-2026 | ORDER |
| 24-02-2026 | ORDER |
| 13-02-2026 | ORDER |
| 31-01-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: MA 8/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal order, remanding the matter for reconsideration. Key Facts: Plaintiffs filed a suit in 2016 for specific performance of a 1987 agreement. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution when plaintiffs failed to appear on 21-03-2025 due to the first plaintiff's serious health conditions (age-related illness, vein defects, thyroid, hypertension). They subsequently filed a restoration application under CPC Order IX Rule 4, which the trial court rejected by requiring them to file a separate miscellaneous petition. Court's Reasoning: The appellate court relied on High Court precedent (Srikant v. Dhanappa) holding that applications under Order IX Rule 4 for suits dismissed due to non-appearance should be treated as Rule 9 applications. The trial court erred by dismissing the restoration application without examining whether sufficient cause existed for non-appearance, instead imposing a technical procedural requirement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Decree
Case Summary: MA 8/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal order, remanding the matter for reconsideration. Key Facts: Plaintiffs filed a suit in 2016 for specific performance of a 1987 agreement. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution when plaintiffs failed to appear on 21-03-2025 due to the first plaintiff's serious health conditions (age-related illness, vein defects, thyroid, hypertension). They subsequently filed a restoration application under CPC Order IX Rule 4, which the trial court rejected by requiring them to file a separate miscellaneous petition. Court's Reasoning: The appellate court relied on High Court precedent (Srikant v. Dhanappa) holding that applications under Order IX Rule 4 for suits dismissed due to non-appearance should be treated as Rule 9 applications. The trial court erred by dismissing the restoration application without examining whether sufficient cause existed for non-appearance, instead imposing a technical procedural requirement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts