G N Narasappa Vs Ramachandrappa

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ETC.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:15845 RSA No. 1283 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard this matter earlier in part when the application was listed for condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the appeal and the said application was allowed. In the meanwhile, the parties have come before this Court stating that they are going to settle the matter. Accordingly, time was granted for settlement. Today, the counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no element of settlement. But the counsel for the appellant has brought the DD before the Court and the same is not accepted and the counsels submit that the matter may be considered on merits.

¶24

Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for respondent, it is noticed by this Court that when the regular appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court, an application was

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15845 RSA No. 1283 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with list of documents running 17 in numbers. The counsel for the appellant also submits that, apart from these documents even when the matter was taken up before this Court in writ petition as well as in the writ appeal as against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, both the writ petition as well as the writ appeal were also dismissed subject to the outcome of the R.A.No.49/2016. The counsel for the appellant would submit that those two documents of writ petition order and the writ appeal order also not placed before the First Appellate Court and seeks permission of this Court to file necessary application before the First Appellate Court to produce those documents.

¶28

3. Having considered the order passed by the First

¶29

Appellate Court with regard to the application filed in I.A.No.3 is concerned, it discloses that the First Appellate Court in paragraphs 24 to 26, taken note of the documents which have been produced along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and so also the

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15845 RSA No. 1283 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

objections filed by the respondent and comes to the conclusion that the reason assigned by the appellant is that by oversight, he could not produce those documents and no other reasons have been assigned and also not given any reasons under what circumstances, he was prevented in producing those documents. The First Appellate Court also an observation is made that Trial Court also while dismissing the suit taken note that brothers have not been made as parties to the proceedings and comes to the conclusion that under the circumstances, production of these documents will not in any way helpful in determining the suit.

¶33

The counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the said reasoning assigned by First Appellate Court is capricious since the First Appellate Court has not considered the documents which require to be produced to prove the title of the appellant since the appellant has sought for the relief of declaration.

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15845 RSA No. 1283 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The counsel appearing for the respondent would

¶37

submit that the respondent has produced ten documents before the Trial Court and the Trial Court taken note of all these documents and dismissed the suit on the ground that original documents of grant are not produced. The counsel would submits that apart from the documents which have been produced before the Trial Court, are going to produce additional documents in respect of the grant order by filing necessary application.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. When both the counsels submit that additional documents which intend to produce are necessary for consideration of the suit wherein prayer is sought for declaration. It is settled law that the plaintiff has to prove his own documents to get the relief of declaration and not depend on the weakness of the defendant. Apart from that, the First Appellate Court also committed an error in passing an order that no reasons are assigned for production of documents. But the

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15845 RSA No. 1283 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

documents which have been produced are in respect of proving of the title particularly, the documents in total 17 numbers are produced. When such documents are produced before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court ought to have considered the same and ought not to have dismissed the application only on the ground of technicalities. Even if no sufficient reasons are assigned, the Court ought to have directed the appellant to file a better affidavit in support of the application since the suit is for the relief of declaration which involves declaration of rights of the parties. But the First Appellate Court has not done the same and on technicality, the application was dismissed. Hence, the matter requires remand to the First Appellate Court directing to decide the same whether those documents are necessary for deciding the title of the appellant and so also the claim made by the respondent. If respondent/defendant also produces any documents, the same can also be considered by the First Appellate Court before disposal of the regular appeal and

¶42

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15845 RSA No. 1283 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

even appellant also intends to file the additional documents, the same can also be permitted and consider the additional documents of both the parties within the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Thus, the matter requires to be remanded to the First Appellate Court to consider the application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and also consider if brothers are necessary parties to the proceedings and if any applications are filed, consider the same in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

¶45

In view of the discussions made about, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER .

¶47

The appeal is allowed.

¶48

Impugned judgment dated 06.04.2022 passed in R.A.No.49/2016 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura is set aside.

¶49

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15845 RSA No. 1283 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court to dispose of the same in view of the observations made by this Court.

¶52

If the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that documents are necessary for deciding the case, even record the evidence and then give a finding on the application as well as on merits of the case instead of remanding the same to the Trial Court.

¶53

The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 17.04.2026.

¶54

The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within 6 months from 17.04.2026.

¶55

The respective parties and respective counsels are also directed to assist the First Appellate Court in disposal of the case in a time bound period.

¶56

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶57

SN

G N Narasappa v. Ramachandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G N Narasappa v. Ramachandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Blue Horizon Hotels Private Limited Vs M/S Gaurav Rose Real Estate Private Limited

Kishor K @ Laddu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R M Ajay Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rajashekar Vs Sri Nagaraju

Dr. Divya J Vs Sri B N Govindaiah

Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka