No companyts.
The Office is directed to transmit a companyy of the Judgment and Decree to the trial Court along with LCR.
All the three applications filed by the Defendant Appellant RSM under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC therefore, are allowed and setting aside the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the FAC in its entirety, because even otherwise it appears to be self companytradictory and vague partial injunction granted by FAC, the matter is restored back to the learned trial Court to allow the said additional evidences to be placed on record and allow the parties to prove and disprove the same in accordance with law and then re decide the suit giving its findings in the light of such additional evidence.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the respondent defendant preferred a second appeal before the High Court, being R.S.A. No.100446 of 2015.
As aforesaid, for the nature of the order that we propose to pass and the issues to be answered in the present appeal, suffice it to observe that the second appeal, being R.S.A. No.100446 of 2015 filed by the respondent defendant before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, was finally decided vide impugned judgment dated 14th November, 2017.
The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.
The operative part of the order passed by the High Court reads thus Therefore, this Court cannot decide the substantial questions of law on which the said present second appeal was admitted on 13.04.2016 at this stage and the matter deserves to go back to the trial Court by allowing the three applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.
The Application filed by the Appellant filed by the Appellant under Order 14 Rule 5 R w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.
The suit filed by the appellant was decreed in part by the First Appellate Court.
In view of the long lapse of time, the trial Court is requested to expedite the matter and decide the suit again expeditiously.
In the first appeal filed by the appellant plaintiff before the Principal Senior Civil Judge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad bearing R.A. No.124 of 2014 Original A. No.14 of 2011 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gangawathi against the dismissal of the suit by the Additional Civil Judge, Gangawathi vide judgment and decree dated 18th June, 2011 in O.S. No.74 of 2010 Original O.S. No.193 of 1992 , three applications under Order XLI Rule 27 for permission to produce additional evidence came to be filed by the respondent defendant.
The Judgment and Decree dated 18 06 2011 passed by the Court of the Addl.
Shorn of unnecessary details we propose to refer only to the facts relevant to decide this appeal.
The Applications filed by the Respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 R w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are dismissed.
The Appeal filed by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed in part.
All As.
The Application filed by the Respondent under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed.
The central issue in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the three applications filed by the respondent defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 before the First Appellate Court.
Furthermore, even if there was just and sufficient reason for allowing the three applications, was the High Court justified in relegating the parties before the trial Court and directing the trial Court to re decide the suit by giving its findings in light of the additional evidence?
The First Appellate Court companysidered the stated applications along with the first appeal preferred by the appellant plaintiff.
The operative order passed by the First Appellate Court dated 22nd April, 2015, reads thus ORDER The Application filed by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 R w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.
are also disposed of.
The First Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the said applications preferred by the respondent defendant and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant plaintiff on the basis of the evidence already brought on record before the trial Court.
The Application filed by the Respondent under Order 14 Rule 5 R w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.
This case has a chequered history.
The High Court directed the trial Court to decide the suit afresh by giving its findings in light of the additional evidence adduced.
M. Khanwilkar, J. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 14th November, 2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A. No.100446 of 2015, whereby the High Court was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and also that of the trial Court and relegated the parties before the trial Court, by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date 2018.09.26 160111 IST allowing three applications filed by the respondent defendant Reason under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for short, CPC .
