1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGAL{3I§'EE.
DATED "ms THE 23"' SAY or SEPTEMBE_R«~~2Q'§:$__;'
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N;!\LE§JAU{?£3PALg.:GQW§}3;.L :'
MISC. SECOND APPEAL fqG.41.#_E_*_Qf__ "
BETWEEN E ' % %
BKSHAMA SHETTY L
5/0 KRISHNAIAH SHETTY L % ;
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O armeooa, RREMMAKRLE .\1rjLLA5E_ '
BALEHOLE R0sT5A7:'L139 I
MUDIGERE TAé_,UK;?'_. _ , R
C%%ICK¥4AGixL{§RE 5i}STR1'Cf;
_ V _ APPELLANT
(BY 5R1.' {;.%s.R cHzDA§4aARA;'Abv. FOR SR1. R GOPAL)
AND; ~
V' ._ ' ..... .. 5
'~ , S/0.SQMA_IAH SHETFY
" ' ABOUT 54 YEARS
' --. R/@'_'_3ELAGOOR HEMMAKIG VILLAGE
' BAaLEH--Ci.E DIST 5?? 139, MUBIGERE TALUK
Ci'§IC§(MAGALORE DISTRICT.
..2 'BR: SURESH
" 5/ O RAMEGQWDA
" E AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R,/0 BELAGOOR HEMMAKKI VILLAGE
BALEHGLE DIST 577 139, MUBIGERE TALUK
CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT.
3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELECTRICAL)
K.P.T.C.L.
2. E have heard Sri (3.5. Chidambara, learned
counsel for the appeliant, Sri Sanath
iearned counsel for R-1 and 2 and Sri ti.K.
counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 anti
3. Sri Chlciambara, lee.rneda..:’coo.nsei”
appellant contended that wt-ieethelllsuit has’v:b’eein…tdeeided~:i*
by the trial Court with refere_nlc’e.:to.._»eli t’he.l_i:ssues framed
therein on merits, it trial Court to
remand”tile;’:i:suit7{byfresortin’g”‘brder 41 Ruie 23 r/w
Sec.1C’i’V”.’~”.(l5).’_ pointed out that, issue
No.4 in tnet%oal,cour:lwa5s with regard to the valuation of
…_prooert’;——–«’and the trial Court taking into
cons%dera’ti}o’n:::Vt*§je evidence on record has answered the
sai’d”issue’.v’§’riV_the affirmative hoiding that, the suit has been
proneri§i”‘;yalued. when such being the fact, in View of sub.
A V~.lf”_Sn3eo’;'(.2) of Sec. 21 of C.P.C, it is not open to the lower
V’ appellate Court to go into the aspect of jurisdiction, since it
is not a case of failure of justice. Learned counsel
contended that Rule 23 Order 41 C.P.CLcae be lnvokee by
K
learned counsei that, the lower appellate V.
mechanically eallowee the appeal and ordered”‘«’remjeoti”
the impugned 3udgment. If the litig§et’i’oné_h–ad
long ago and if the remand order iemieirge, it ‘n_}ayy.peoo’rrsev”~
never ending litigation, which-.:h–a;s hee-n _ ‘eo’ugVVh’tr”to’V be
avoided by empowering»§poeiiatéVlcoisert either to record
the evidence on its own or finally decide
and eetetmirae. contention.
Learned lower appellate Court
has faiilleléi vesteci in it, in
eccordahce” w£th– the impugheci Judgment
caenotbe sL§stai’tled’.; ‘
Per’eo_htre, Sri Saneth Kumar Shetty, teamed
:”V. oouriee3 respondent, taking me through the
Ai%:.lp’o.gjhei34:’3_egl§Vrj*ient of the lower Appellate court submitted
_ thatftn t.he=fects and circumstances noticed by the lower
.e;p.peiiate”‘Court, it was gustified in remancling the suit to
‘triel Court. Learned cc-urzsei drew my attention to Ruie
it 23?; of Order 41 CFC. Learned counsel cogended that, no
/
7
“right of the appellant is taken away and that there.–is an
opportunity for the appellant to lead evidence and”th’ef”L:tr§al
Court can decide the suit afresh. He contenc¥e2i.:’thvatT,:
no prejudice will be caused to:-“the~4a&p:aell:a’ntV;’._lay’«’.ithé–, it
Impugned Judgment of remand’«V__t’a_VA”the”‘trial
interference is not called the.. cent_ention”‘ of”: the l’ V
learned counsel that, the impugnledlViudgnient-.isvvflliable to
be sustained.
5; “”” “‘–t_§n;ata;””‘-“learned counsel for
respondents-3 that, the Court may
examine the ..appeal_ in~.v_t:he~*’l’light of the provisions appiicable
,_in matter and pessiorder in accordance with law.
2 5. ._.Afi:er hearing learned counsel on both sidfi
the records, the point that arises for
. consideration is:
is Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in
i’-ernanding the suit for fresh considerationgv
/
14
3) Since the suit is of the year 1995 and the appeai
is of the year 2006, the lower Appeiiate Cofirto is
hereby directed to dispose of the
period of one year from the date a copy”vofi:.ti1i*s~oérderii
is received from the Regisfgiriyiviw
record by either of the pa_rties”to_:ti2e appereig’ ° ‘
4) Needless to observe are
confined for e;§’a::jinastio§ifjAgi’»”‘Vi’-..point’Hiireised for
consideration and fiof.-.:tvhiAS’V_’Jeiiipeai and the
same shaii notbe.j’;ohstrued’es__exp;’@sion of opinion
on merit oretherwise’ therfiatter in appeai. Aii the
contenticnsA of” i.ioth.v” are left open for
I-‘fl<.:"e"nsidei:a§o:«;i iwfithe appeiiate Court. Parties
ere iéearktheir re$ective costs.
_ Aiepeai is eiioiaéed acco rdingy.
Li’ ”
Sd/-
Judge