Remanded

Smt. S Siddagangamma v. the Municipal Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024RSA/693/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal over a dismissed first appeal where an Order 41 Rule 27 application for additional evidence was never considered by the First Appellate Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment and decree, and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court to reconsider it afresh along with that application.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 in R.A.No.58/2013 set aside; matter remanded to First Appellate Court to consider afresh with the Order 41 Rule 27 application.

Smt. S Siddagangamma Vs the Municipal Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21563 RSA No. 693 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.693 OF 2018 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. S. SIDDAGANGAMMA, W/O S. RAMANATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT BANNI NAGARA, BANNI MANTAPA, SIRA TOWN, TUMKUR DISRICT-572137.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI L.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.

¶14

SMT. P. BHANUMATHI, W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT BANNI NAGARA, BANNI MANTAPA, SIRA TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(R1 SERVED;

¶17

R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.05.2024)

¶18

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21563 RSA No. 693 of 2018

¶20

CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.08.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.246/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

This matter is listed for admission. This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant on 10.06.2024 and the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that an I.A. was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC before the First Appellate Court and the same was not considered. Hence, this Court directed the learned counsel for the appellant to produce the copy of the application filed before the First Appellate Court and the order sheet evidencing the fact that an application is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

¶24

Today the learned counsel has filed a memo along with certified copy of the application along with affidavit filed under Order 41 Rule 27 (aa) read with Section 151 of CPC, the documents which have been produced before the First Appellate Court, the order sheet in R.A.No.58/2013 dated 07.04.2015, wherein a reference is made for filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and posted the matter for filing of objections. The order sheet dated 28.09.2016 discloses that objection was

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21563 RSA No. 693 of 2018

¶26

filed and posted the matter to hear and arguments. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the operative portion of the First Appellate Court’s order, wherein the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with cost, but no order as to considering the I.A. filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

¶27

On perusal of the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.58/2013, no point is formulated for consideration of the I.A. filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. In the operative portion also there is no order with regard to the filing of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. When an application is filed before the First Appellate Court invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, whether the application and the additional documents which have been produced before the First Appellate Court are necessary for deciding the appeal in respect of germane issues, the First Appellate Court ought to have considered the same and there is no any reference in the order and hence it is apparent on record that the First Appellate Court without considering the I.A. filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, considered the appeal. Hence, the matter requires to be remanded to the First Appellate Court to consider the matter afresh along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC as observed above.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:21563 RSA No. 693 of 2018

¶30

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶31

following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 passed in R.A.No.58/2013 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Court to consider the matter afresh along with the application.

¶34

(ii) The appellant and the learned counsel are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 22.07.2024, without expecting any notice from the First Appellate Court.

¶35

(iii) This Court had issued notice to the respondents and none appeared. Hence, the First Appellate Court is directed to issue notice to the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents as well as the respondents before the First Appellate Court and thereafter on their appearance, dispose of the appeal within six months.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Smt. S Siddagangamma v. the Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S Siddagangamma v. the Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Limbayya Vs Susheela

Yankappa Vs Honnappa

Sri Suresh Babu C K Vs Sri Basave Gowda

Mr Ayaz Pasha Vs Mr S N Shankar

Adhemma Vs Smt. Challamma

Smt Jayalakshmamma Vs Smt Narayanamma