IN THE H{GH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20" DAY OE OCTOBER, 20%-TET'
BEFORE
THE HC)N'BLE MR. JUSTICE jE*rRAREE.D.YV'E..
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.' 924 To "
BETWEEN:
1. ChikkavenkatamIT1a'E
Aged about 53 yea.r.9,'_'-.. ' =
W/O La.te'«S_r'i_~nivaE Redgiy ' '
2. V
V..A.ged"ab'O£It; y-e_a:'.s_.' "
S/O _I§2':tEE:_..S_rai1'1?71.\V/as. Raddy .
3. \k'erikatashi§)zi:V.Re_dd$(V""
V _ _ Aged about 'v287years,
S10 Srihivgs Recjdy
' are1*esi,eients Of
B_'yr'ap.ai1i..VV\'i.Iiage, Kasaba Hobli,
' STin_ivaspi11fTa1uk,
Kelar.-_DistTict - 563 155. ...Appe11ants
E " {By G. Papi Reddy, Advocate)
1. B.R. Narasimha Reddy
Major by age
as
S/o Ramappa,
Resident of Byrapalli village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Srinivaspur Taluk
Kolar District -- 563 155.
2. Sri. K.G. Gopal Reddy
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Kadiri Reddy,
Resident of
Byrapalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Srinivaspur Ta1ul<,__ _ *
Kolar District -- _ Vi ....,Respondents
(By Shri. L. Venkamrama' ._ Re'ddy,'~~._'jvsrgdvocate for
CaV6flt0f/R6SpUI2d.§§l1IS) " - '
This 5Reg_.u}ar'"Se.coiidfi'j-Aippeial filed under Section 100
of Code. sofCi.yVil ;l"?.ijoced1jii'eV,V' l'908,W_a.gai_nst the judgment and
decreedatedi'22..,l.2.fl009 passed in R.A.No.2/2009 on the file
of the r.Aaaiiienaciviiryjjiiagej (S:r.Dn), Kolar dismissing the
appeal 'filed, against -- _ti:epi" judgment and decree dated
l0.12.2008"~passed2_i.n~.,O'.~SiLNo.49/2006 on the file of the
Prir1eipal.Civil 'Judge (J r. Dn) and J MFC, Srinivaspur.
-Regular Second Appeal coming on for Admission
,'t'ne court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
A ~~”fhe appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court in
for partition and separate possession. The suit was
…_.contested and ultimately the suit was dismissed on reasons
be_ing assigned by the trial court in support of its findings .
The same had been questioned in an appeal. And before “the
lower appellate court, the plaintiff -~ appellant
application under Order XL} Rule 27 of the
Procedure, 1908, seeking to produce ce_rtaivnli’regi,stere’d”-and;ti
other documents which accordi_ng to». theVap*p:el.la’nt_,, were
crucial. to his case and which produced
for reasons assigned, at lower appellate
Court the appl_ication
without at the time of
this which is primarily
urged asasiibstantiai..ques–tio’n”of law.
As. could””b’e’iseen from the judgment, the said
“niinib.ered as Interlocutory Application No.2 is
dis’missed’ the lower a_ppel_l_ate court without assigning
H reasonsi”as to why it ought not to have been considered and
‘whether the documents were relevant and whether the
V wreasons assigned by the appellant were sufficient to justify the
application being allowed and the documents being allowed
to be produced as additional evidence. The lower appellate
court being the final court on facts as well as la«w.,,’_fit’__w’asV°
incumbent on the lower appellate court to h.ave”Vppr0fiee,dedV”‘
with circurnspection in summarilygrejeetinng’the~..appl’ication;A
without assigning reasons, as”a__v’v.aluabl’ev-
would be taken away by rej’ee:ti,onJi It was
therefore, necessary for topassign reasons
173 6V3” F<°«J."5(3,l~viY3'.:L"i:.gVpt'_l1e "reference to the
docurnentsl's'ou;ght.'VtVo;"be dismissal does result
in
of a stiff opposition by the
counsel _ for 'then 'responcleznt, the appeal is allowed on this
namely, the lower appellate court shall
reconsi'de'r'_~thefapplication in l.A.2 and if the lower appellate
conrtzshould find that there was sufficient reason to allow the
lapplijcation, shall thereafter proceed to permit the appellant
if either to tender additional evidence before the very court or to
remit the matter to the trial court for such evidence being
recorded and thereafter to address the appeal on merits with
reference to those additional documents, which may
not throw light on the appellant's case.
With that observation, the apfjealuis ‘l..allo«’Niedi«.__ _’*h«e
judgment and decree of the lower appellate court.”.isl:setl’ aslidet V
and the matter is remanded for alfrelsh _consideration in terms
as aforesaid.
IIV