Patel Revanna Vs Narasimhaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Patel Revanna Vs Narasimhaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.31/2007 set aside and matter remitted to the First Appellate Court with directions to consider I.A.No.20, 21 and 22, permit additional evidence from both parties, and decide the appeal afresh on merits; conditional upon the appellants depositing exemplary cost of Rs.75,000/- within two weeks, failing which the appeal is not to be restored

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.31/2007 should be set aside and the matter remitted, because the Appellate Court heard the appeal along with the undecided applications (I.A.No.20, 21 and 22 - amendment seeking possession and temporary injunction) and did not discuss the limitation of the counter claim +1 more

Court's answer

The Appellate Court ought to have taken note of the reliefs sought in the applications for amendment as well as temporary injunction; instead it heard the appeal along with the pending applications, and did not discuss whether the counter claim was filed within time

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court by setting aside its order, with a specific direction to consider I.A.No.20, 21 and 22 and then decide the matter on merits

Key takeaways

The appellants are directed to adduce the additional evidence as earlier observed in the earlier R.S.A, and the Appellate Court is directed to give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence, if any, and then decide the matterratio¶84
Exemplary cost of Rs.75,000/- is imposed on the appellants; out of that Rs.10,000/- is payable to the respondents and the remaining amount vests with the Stateratio¶85
The cost is payable within 2 weeks, and only on depositing the cost will the appeal be restored and considered afresh in view of the observations made by this Court

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.), Regular Second Appeal No.892 of 2025 (DEC) under Section 100 CPC, decided 25.11.2025. The appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2025 of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in R.A.No.31/2007, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2000 in O.S.No.203/1986 (Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Tumakuru). Holding that the First Appellate Court had heard the appeal along with undecided applications - an amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking possession (the suit having earlier been dismissed because possession was not sought) and a temporary injunction application - and had not examined whether the counter claim was filed within time, the High Court set aside the first appellate order and remitted the matter with a specific direction to consider I.A.No.20, 21 and 22 and then decide on merits. The appellants were directed to adduce additional evidence as earlier observed in the previous RSA, with opportunity to both parties. Exemplary cost of Rs.75,000/- was imposed (Rs.10,000/- to the respondents, balance to the State), payable within two weeks, restoration of the appeal being conditional on deposit. Parties to appear on 19.12.2025; disposal within six months; day-to-day hearing after winter vacation-2025.