- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19654 RSA No. 1674 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1674 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RUDRAMMA SHEDTHI @ RUDRAKSHIAMMA, W/O RAGHURAMA SHETTY, D/O RUKMINI SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, C/O HOTEL VISHNU BHAVAN, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POST AND TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214. 2. SMT. JALAJAMMA SHEDTHI, W/O MANJAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 3. SMT. VEENA D. SHETTY, D/O JALAJAMMA SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 4. MR. PRAVEEN KUMAR SHETTY, S/O JALAJAMMA SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KOTHADI, ‘MANOOR MANE’, VADDARSE VILLAGE, POST: BANNADY, BHRAMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-572 214. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANKETH K.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19654 RSA No. 1674 of 2023 AND: 1. MR. RAJARAMA SHETTY, S/O GIRIJAMMA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS. 2. MR. RADHA KRISHNA SHETTY, S/O GIRIJAMMA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KOTHADY PATELARAMANE, VADDARSE VILLAGE, POST: BANNADY, BHRAMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-572 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2023. PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.282/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINICIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that an application was filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19654 RSA No. 1674 of 2023 before the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with the document of sale deed dated 11.04.1921 contending that the said document is very much necessary for deciding the issue involved between the parties since the Trial Court while dismissing the suit made an observation that no title document is placed before the Court and the said application was not considered by the Appellate Court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents not disputes the fact that an application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and contend that only one document was produced. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that now also an application is filed before this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC i.e., I.A.No.1/2024 for production of additional documents i.e., document Nos.1 to 8. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the appellants are filing the documents in installments and those documents are not produced before the Appellate Court and also not made out any ground. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19654 RSA No. 1674 of 2023 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and also on perusal of the material available on record, the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and subsequently amended the prayer for the relief of declaration. The Trial Court made an observation that the defendants failed to produce the document and when the document is placed before the Appellate Court by invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the Appellate Court ought to have considered the said application whether the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC requires for consideration of the decision of the case to meet the germane issues involved between the parties. Having perused the judgment of the Appellate Court passed in R.A.No.40/2017, no such point for consideration was framed by the Appellate Court. It is settled law that when an application is filed seeking permission of the Court in an appeal invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional documents, the said application has to be disposed of along with the main appeal and the same is not done. On perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court, only raised the point for consideration whether the Trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19654 RSA No. 1674 of 2023 has committed an error in decreeing the suit and hence the impugned judgment of the Trial Court calls for any interference by the Court. Only a general point for consideration was framed and when the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, ought to have framed appropriate point for consideration along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and the same is not done. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents not disputes the fact that an application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The only contention is that only one document is produced and now several documents are produced along with an application for production of additional documents. 8. Having taken note of the non-consideration of the application, the matter requires to be remanded for fresh consideration to consider the application along with the main appeal that whether the documents which have been placed before the Appellate Court is necessary for deciding the issues involved between the parties and frame the point for consideration and decide the same. In view of the filing of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19654 RSA No. 1674 of 2023 additional documents before this Court by filing an application I.A.No.1/2024, liberty is given to the appellants to place on record those documents before the Appellate Court by filing necessary additional application before the Appellate Court. 9. It is important to note that there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants have adopted the method of filing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC before the Appellate Court as well as before this Court. Hence, the respondents are also given an opportunity to object the application, if such an application is filed before the Appellate Court and if such an application is filed, the Appellate Court is directed to consider the said application while considering the main appeal on merits. Having taken note of the suit is of the year 2012 and almost 13 years has been elapsed, a time bound direction may be given to the Appellate Court to consider the application as well as the appeal on merits. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19654 RSA No. 1674 of 2023 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.40/2017, is set aside. (iii) The Appellate Court is directed to consider the application, which is already filed before the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with the main appeal. If any additional application is filed in view of the application filed before this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the same shall also be considered and an opportunity also to be given to the respondents to object the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and consider such application along with the main appeal. (iv) The appellants are permitted to take back the documents which have been produced before this Court along with I.A.No.1/2024 and place the same before the Appellate Court. (v) The appellants are directed to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents in view of the delay in filing the additional documents before this Court, within one month from today. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19654 RSA No. 1674 of 2023 (vi) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 30.06.2025, without expecting any notice from the Appellate Court. (vii) The Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from 30.06.2025 and both the learned counsel are directed to assist the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal within a time bound period. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53