- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22507 RSA No. 1332 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1332 OF 2009 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI D ERANNA S/O DODDAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-565 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A C BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI R NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,R/O JAGANATH NILAYA II FLOOR, KATERIPALYA MAIN ROAD, KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 100. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AJITH N., ADVOCATE FOR M/S. UPASANA ASSOCIATES BY, SRI S. SHIVA SHANKARA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.03.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.219/2004 ON THE FILE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-III, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAISNT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.07.2004 PASSED IN O.S.NO.118/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) & JMFC, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22507 RSA No. 1332 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal arises from the judgment in R.A.No.219/2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The said First appeal is directed against the order dated 06.07.2004 in O.S.No.118/1996 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hosakote, Bangalore District, dismissing the suit for non- prosecution. The suit was for re-conveyance of the suit property. 2. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on the premise that order of dismissal of the suit is for non- prosecution is not an appealable order. 3. This Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the Judgment passed by the First Appellate Court since the order of dismissal of the suit was for non-prosecution, and not an appealable decree under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure. Since, there was no decree, the plaintiff ought not to have filed the first appeal and the present Regular Second Appeal is not maintainable. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22507 RSA No. 1332 of 2009 4. However, it is noticed that all these years the plaintiff has been prosecuting before the wrong forum. Hence liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to initiate necessary proceedings before appropriate Forum for restoration of the suit. 5. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered on its merits and the time spent in prosecuting the first appeal as well as the Regular Second Appeal have to excluded in computing limitation. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the appellant seeking restoration of the suit. 7. All contentions, except question of limitation are kept open. 8. Accordingly, the regular second appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7