- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15126 RSA No. 494 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 494 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. K.M. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O MARULASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.59, 4TH CROSS ROAD, MARUTHI NAGARA, ARASIKERE TOWN AND TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAMEGOWDA, S/O HOTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HALEPALYA, BESIDE PARAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 201. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.101/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ARSIKERE., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.341/2022 ON THE FILE OF C/C ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARSIKERE. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15126 RSA No. 494 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2024 passed in R.A. No.101/2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere, wherein, the Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.1.2022 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.341/2022 and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court with a direction to give an opportunity to the defendant No.2 to file his written statement, and lead his evidence. 2. The appellant aggrieved by the order of remand, has filed this regular second appeal. 3. The Office has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. Order 43, Rule 1(u) of the C.P.C. allows an appeal against an order of remand under Order 41, Rule 23 or Rule 23A, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court. Hence, the office has rightly raised the objection regarding maintainability of the appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15126 RSA No. 494 of 2025 4. The Office objection is upheld, and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty is reserved to the appellant to challenge the impugned judgment in the appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 5. The Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgments, after retaining the photocopy of the same. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: BHK