- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24076 RFA No. 1544 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1544 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. K.NARASIMHA MURTHY SON OF LATE V.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.36, 2ND CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, KALYANANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANKAR REDDY.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MISS. MOHANA MANOHARAN DAUGHTER OF LATE MANOHARAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. SRI. NARENDRAN MANOHARAN SON OF LATE MANOHARAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT OLD NO.499, NEW NO.26, CHELLEKERE VILLAGE, NEAR KALIYAMMA TEMPLE, BABUSAB PALYA, BENGALURU-560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.VIRUPAKSHA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24076 RFA No. 1544 of 2017 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI FULE (1) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Shakar Reddy.C., counsel for the appellant and Sri.M.Virupaksha, counsel on behalf of Sri.K.Chandrashekar, for respondents 1 and 2, have appeared in person. 2. This is an appeal from the Court of VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-15). 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anybody claiming through him from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After the service of the summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. Among other grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24076 RFA No. 1544 of 2017 Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. The second plaintiff was examined as PW.1, and documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, no witnesses were examined, and no documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment dated 26.03.2016 decreed the suit and restrained the defendant or anybody claiming through him from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Under these circumstances, the defendant has filed the captioned appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 5. Urging several contentions, counsel for the respective parties made the submissions. Counsel Sri.C.Shankar Reddy., in presenting his argument, strenuously urged that the appellant had filed an application for the production of additional evidence, and the same had been allowed; hence, he argued by saying that the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court. By way of reply, counsel for the respondents submitted no objection. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and records with care. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24076 RFA No. 1544 of 2017 7. Suffice it to note that an application seeking the production of additional documents was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The counsel for the respondents had submitted that they have no objection to allowing the application. This Court vide order dated 28.01.2020 had allowed the application. Both parties had agreed that additional evidence should be admitted. Because of the admission of the additional evidence, the matter requires a remand. The Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Judgment and Decree dated 26.03.2016 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-15) in O.S.No.5758/2013 is set aside, and the case is remanded for fresh decision by the Trial Court. Needless to say, the remand order is an open one contemplating re-trial. The parties are represented by their respective counsel, and they are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 21.07.2025 without further notice. The Registry concerned is hereby directed to send the records and the documents that are produced by the appellant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24076 RFA No. 1544 of 2017 along with the application in I.A.No.3/2017 to the Trial Court by replacing the same with Xerox copies forthwith. 8. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is allowed and remanded. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31