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.

Case disposed

M.A. - MISCELLANUOUS APPEALS

CNR: KAUK610004482025

Filing Number

8/2025

Filing Date

03-Nov-2025

Registration No

8/2025

Registration Date

04-Nov-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR

Judge

526-Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U.O 43, Rule 1(c) , r/w 141

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Smt. Radha W/o Krishna Shet, Age 63 Years, R/at Durgakeri, Honavar town, Tq-Honnavar

    Adv. Chandrashekar Gouda

  2. 2.Sri. Ajay Krishna Shet, Age 33 Years, R/at Durgakeri, Honavat Town, Tq-Honnavar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Mahammad Ismail Shaikh, Age 75 Years, R/o Honavar kasaba Gundibail, Tq-Honnavar Advocate - Subramanya Manjunath Bhagawat

  2. 2.Hamaza Ismail Shaikh, Age 69 Years, R/o Honavar Kasaba Gundibail, Tq-Honnavar

  3. 3.Hussain Ismail Shaikh, Age 54 Year, R/o Honnavar Kasaba Gundiabil, Tq-Honnavar

  4. 4.Ummar Ismail Shaikh, Age 50 Years, R/o Honnavar Kasaba Gundiabil, Tq-Honnavar

  5. 5.Smt. Salma @ Salimabi W/o Mohiddin Shaikh, Age 60 Years, R/o Sirsi Kotekere, Ramanbail, Near Primary School, Sirsi Taluk.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Orders

    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.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Decree

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  8. 31-Jan-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  9. 17-Jan-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  10. 03-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  11. 06-Dec-2025

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  12. 22-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  13. 15-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  14. 05-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 03-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case