- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100249 OF 2018 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: 1. DUNDAPPA S/O. SIDDARAMAPPA PATTANASHETTI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, 2. RAVI S/O. DUNDAPPA PATTANASHETTI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, 3. MANJUNATH S/O. DUNDAPPA PATTANASHETTI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, ALL R/O: MURGOD, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.-591119. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JYOTHI W/O. ASHOK SUTAGATTI AGE: 31 YEARS, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.02.27 16:40:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102. 2. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA KALANNAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, NAGAVVA W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA KALANNAVAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. BASAPPA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA KALANNAVAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. SIDDAPPA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA KALANNAVAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL R/O: NEAR DURADUNDESHWAR MATH MURGOD, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.-591119. 5. SMT. MAHADEVI @ RUDRAWWA W/O. SURESH JALLI, AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. MUGBASAV TEMPLE, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.-591102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:28.04.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.16/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.16/2014 have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti in O.S.No.16/2014. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction. By the impugned judgment, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Same is challenged by the plaintiffs in the present appeal. 2. We refer the parties as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case of plaintiffs are that: The original propositus was one Siddaramappa @ Seemanna Veerabadhrappa Pattanshetti (for short - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 `Siddaramappa’). He had four sons and four daughters by names Malakajappa, Gurupadappa, Veerabhadrappa Dundappa, Sonavva, Neelavva, Shakuntala and Mahadevi respectively, plaintiff No.1 is the son of Siddaramappa. He got married to Smt. Irabasavva. From the said wedlock, he has two children i.e. Mahantesh and Jyothi, who are defendant No.1 and 2 respectively. The said Irabasavva died during the year 1995. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 got married to Smt. Shobha and from the said wedlock, he has two sons i.e. plaintiff No.2 Ravi and plaintiff No.3 – Manjunath. 4. Siddaramappa was a tenant at Sy.No.21 of Muragod village to an extent of 27 acres and 25 guntas. Similarly one Channappa Madiwalar was also a tenant in the some portion of Sy.No.21. After coming into force of Land Reforms Act, both Siddaramappa and Channappa filed Form No.7 claiming to grant occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal, Saundatti, in the proceedings bearing No. KLR-SDT/18-19+20+21+18, dated 04.02.1982, jointly - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 granted occupancy rights in the name of Siddaramappa and Channappa. The name of Siddaramappa was entered in the revenue records as per ME No.1027/19.03.1982. Both of them jointly cultivated their respective area in Sy.No.21. During the year 1983, both Siddaramappa and Channappa effected partition in respect of Sy.No.21. The portion of Sy.No.21 measuring 27 acres and 25 guntas was subdivided and it was given as Sy.No.21/2. Accordingly, ME No.10345 dated 14.07.1983 was ordered. 5. The said Siddaramappa died on 15.02.1995 leaving behind his four sons and four daughters. After the death of Siddaramappa, there was a partition between sons and daughters of Siddaramappa in respect of Sy.No.21/1. As per the said partition, revenue records were mutated by M.No.183 dated 17.10.1995. In the said partition, to an extent of 4 acres was allotted to the share of the plaintiff No.1 – Dundappa. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 and 2 were been in lawful possession - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 and enjoyment of the said land. It was renumbered as Sy.No.21/3, measuring 4 acres. 6. During the year 2012 defendant No.1 started claiming absolute right over the suit property and posing to others that he is the absolute owner of the said property and started obstructing to the peaceful possession of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also came to know that defendant No.1 got mutated the revenue records in his name only. Plaintiffs also came to know that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were intending to sell the suit property. Therefore, plaintiffs gave public notice in ‘Vijaya Vani’, Kannada Daily Newspaper dated 29.11.2013, cautioning the public not to purchase or deal the suit property with defendant No.1 and 2; Despite of such publication, defendant No.1 and 2 sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.3 on 26.11.2013. Defendant No.3 on the strength of the said Sale Deed tried to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the plaintiffs were - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 constrained to file the suit. With these reasons, plaintiffs prayed for following reliefs:- (a) Relief of declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of suit property is not binding on the share of the plaintiff. (b) To pass a decree of partition and separate possession of the 3/5th share of plaintiff in the suit schedule property by meets and bounds and handing over the separate possession of the plaintiff. (c) The relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.3 from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 7. Defendant No.1 admitted the genealogy and also the fact that suit property is a joint family property. He further contends that in the partition between plaintiff No.1 and his father, the suit property was allotted to the share of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. He further contends that, during the life time of Irabasavva, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 against her wish and protest, plaintiff No.1 got married for the second time to Smt. Shobha. Hence, it was illegal and void marriage and children born from the said marriage are illegitimate children. During the life time of plaintiff No.1, they have no right over the suit property. 8. Defendant No.1 further contended that Plaintiff No.1 was not at all in possession of the suit property from the year 1988. From the year 1988, after filing of Form No.7, defendant No.1 alone has been in actual and physical possession of the said property. The plaintiff No.1 is not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 12 years. Therefore, whatever rights they had over the suit property is extinguished and they lost their right. Defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit property by adverse possession. Defendant No.1 sold the suit property to defendant No.3. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for any share over the suit schedule property and with these reasons, prayed to dismiss the suit. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 Defendant No.2 and 3 adopted the written statement of Defendant No.1. 9. From the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: Issues 1) Do the plaintiffs prove that suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2? 2) Do the plaintiffs prove the 3/5th share in the suit properties? 3) Do the plaintiffs entitled to any relief? 4) What order or decree? 10. Plaintiffs to prove their case examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked 22 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-22 and closed their evidence. The defendants examined DWs-1 to 5 and got marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-3. 11. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of both the parties, appreciating the pleadings and evidence available on record, answered issue No.1 to 3 in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit with cost. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 12. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that relationship between the parties, i.e., genealogy is not in dispute. It is further stated that defendants have not at all taken defense that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and all the joint family properties were not included in the suit. Defendant No.1 has not seriously disputed that after the death of Irabasavva, i.e. his mother, plaintiff No.1 got married to Smt. Shobha. The trial Court did not frame any issues regarding second marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Smt.Shobha as well as it was a void marriage. The trial Court has also not framed issue regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and not including of all the so called joint family properties. No opportunities were given to plaintiffs to lead their evidence in this regard. Since there were no issues, relevant evidence was not placed on record by the appellants before the trial Court. Without framing relevant issues, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 the trial Court dismissed the suit merely on the ground that all the joint family properties were not included and all the joint family members were not added as parties to the suit. The said findings of the trial Court are erroneous. Even the trial Court did not direct appellants/plaintiffs to implead necessary parties as well as to include all the joint family properties in the suit. Therefore, findings of the learned trial Judge is erroneous and illegal and prays to set aside the said judgment. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the pleadings, defendant No.1 had specifically contended that during the lifetime of first wife of plaintiff No.1, against the wish of his first wife, he married to Smt.Shobha. The said marriage was illegal. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are born from the said illegal marriage and hence they are illegitimate children of plaintiff No.1. During the lifetime of plaintiff No.1, they have no right to claim partition in the property. Therefore, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 had no locus standi to file the suit. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 15. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that in the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that there are some other properties belonging to joint family. The documents produced by the plaintiffs i.e., Exs.P-5 and P-6 shows that one more agricultural land and a house property (that was mentioned in the unregistered partition deed, which is noted in the mutation entry) were not included in the present suit. The brothers of the plaintiff No.1 to whom the properties were allotted, are not been made as parties in the present suit. Still plaintiffs did not bother to implead those persons as the parties to the suit and include all the joint family properties. Partial partition and not including of all the members of the family in the suit for partition are also fatal. During the trial, both the parties have led evidence in this regard. Both side Parties have understood the contentions of each other. Therefore, merely issues were not framed in this regard, cannot be a ground to decree the suit. In a suit for partition, it is the duty of the plaintiff to include all the family properties as well as to implead all the members of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 the joint family who are entitled for share in the family property. It is the mandatory rule and if it is not complied, the Court has no other go, except to dismiss the suit. The matter was pending before the trial Court for nearly about four years, but plaintiffs did not take any pain to include all the joint family properties, as well as to include all the members of the family who have interest over the joint family properties and claim the relief. The plaintiffs deliberately and intentionally did not include all the joint family properties and not included all the joint family members in the present suit. The present suit is filed only to harass and defeat the rights of purchaser over the suit property. Considering these facts, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. It does not call for any interference. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal with cost. 16. Following points emerges for our determination: i. Whether learned trial Judge erred in dismissing the suit for not including all the joint family properties in the present suit and - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 also for not including all the necessary parties to the suit? ii. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in holding that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are illegitimate children of plaintiff No.1 and they have no right over the suit schedule property till the life time of plaintiff No.1? iii. Whether the finding of the trial Court needs interference by this Court? iv. What Order? 17. We answer to the above point Nos.1 to 2 in the Negative for the following reasons: The genealogy of the family is not disputed. The plaintiff No.1 in the plaint has stated that his wife Irabasavva died during the year 1995 and he got two children through his first wife, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff No.1 has not mentioned the date of his marriage with his second wife. It is also not clearly mentioned in the plaint that he married to Smt. Shobha after the death of his first wife Irabasavva. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 Such particulars are very much necessary for the just decision of this case. Plaintiffs suppressed the said facts for the reasons best known to them. 18. In the written statement, at paragraph No.9, defendant No.1 has contended that during the year 1988, his mother Irabasavva W/o Dundappa died leaving behind defendant Nos.1 and 2 as her legal heirs. It is also alleged that during the lifetime of Irabasavva, plaintiff No.1 had second marriage with Smt.Shobha even after the protest of his first wife Irabasavva. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the children of second wife of plaintiff No.1. They have no right over the suit property. Plaintiffs have not filed any rejoinder and denied these allegations. 19. It is true that trial Court did not frame issues in this regard. However, both the parties have understood their contentions and plaintiffs have produced evidence in this regard before the trial Court. Therefore, non-framing of necessary issues did not cause any prejudice to the rights of the appellants/plaintiffs. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 20. In this case, both the parties have led evidence believing that they have understood the contentions of each other. Plaintiffs to prove the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Smt.Shobha, have examined PW-2 and produced the marriage invitation card at Ex.P-22. Therefore, non-framing of issues is not fatal in the present case. 21. The plaintiffs approached the Court with certain contentions. In the plaint, plaintiff No.1 himself has stated status of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and his wife and he has stated that his first wife died during 1995. During the course of trial, it was proved to be incorrect and she was died during the year 1988. The Death Certificate of Irabasavva is produced at Ex.P-21. She died on 30.06.1988. Plaintiff No.1 has not mentioned the date of his marriage with Smt.Shobha. It is also not specifically stated that after the death of his first wife, he married to Smt.Shobha. Why these facts were not disclosed in the plaint, is not explained. It is pertinent to note that he impleaded his two sons born from his wedlock with - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 Smt.Shobha as plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. To claim share in the property, it was necessary for plaintiff No.1 to disclose date of his marriage with Smt. Shobha and to state whether he married Smt.Shobha after the death of his first wife Irabasavva. 22. Learned counsel for respondents submits that Ex.P-21 is created for the purpose of this case. Normally, the owner of the printing press, who prints invitation card would mention the name and address of the printing press in the invitation card. Ex.P-22 does not contain the said information. PWs-1 and 2 admits that normally name of the printers are mentioned in the invitation card. The said documents were produced subsequent to recording of cross-examination of PW-1. Therefore, it was a created document. 23. The said contentions of the respondents cannot be ruled out. No other documents were produced by the appellants to prove the date of marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Smt.Shobha. These facts are discussed in detail by - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 the trial Court. Therefore, plaintiff No.1 was not able to prove that his marriage with Smt.Shobha was legal and after the death of his first wife Irabasavva, he married to Smt.Shobha. Admittedly, the suit property is ancestral and joint family property. The children born from void marriage are considered as illegitimate children and they are entitled for share in the property belonging to their father in the general partition, that too, after the death of their father. In this case, father and illegitimate children together have filed the suit. Therefore as per Section 16(3) of Hindu Succession Act, they are not entitled for any share in the suit property. On these grounds, the suit filed by plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 fails. 24. The trial Court dismissed the suit on two technical reasons: i. Non-inclusion of all the joint family properties and non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit. Plaintiffs produced Exs.P-5 and P-6 i.e., Mutation extract; As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, Ex.P-5 shows - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 that after the death of Siddaramappa, names of his children i.e. 1) Malakajappa, 2) Gurupadappa, 3) Veerabadhrappa 4) Dundappa and daughters by name 5) Sonavva, 6) Neelavva, 7) Shakuntala, 8) Mahadevi, are entered in the mutation entries dated 18.04.1995 in M.E.No.133 in respect of Sy.No.21/1 and 120. Ex.P-5 was produced by the plaintiffs. Sy.No.120 is not included in the plaint for effecting partition. In ME.No.181, produced at Ex.P6, names were mutated as per partition between the members of the family dated 13.09.1995. In Ex.P-6 also there is reference regarding partition of Sy.No.120, but there is no consequential entry regarding property allotted to each member of the family. It is also worth to note that in Sy.No.21/1, certain extent of land was distributed to each member of the family and in the said Sy.No.21/1, 6 acres was kept jointly in the name of 1) Malakajappa 2) Gurupadappa 3) Veerabadhrappa 4) Dundappa, sons of Siddaramappa @ Seemanna Veerabadrappa Pattanashetti. The said portion of Sy.No.21/1 measuring 6 acre, which is jointly allotted to - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 brothers of plaintiff No.1 is not included in the plaint schedule. ii. The defendants produced Ex.D1 – copy of the assessment register of the year 2012-13, wherein property bearing No.68/17 is standing in the joint names of (i) Gundappa, S/o Siddaramappa and (ii) Muragesha Malakajappa Pattanashetti. During the evidence, PW-1 admits that said property is also a joint family property. The said property is also not the subject matter of the present suit. Admittedly, the present suit is only in respect of landed property sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3. Such suit is not maintainable. 25. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of G.M. Mahendra vs. G.M. Mohan and another1, held that: “ HINDU LAW-Partial partition-CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908-Order 2, Rule 2- Suit for partition by non-alienating coparcener-Suit filed by making the 1 2011 (14) KCCR 2461 (DB) - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 purchaser also as a party to the proceeding- Failure to include all the properties of the joint family in the suit schedule-Held, such failure affects the right of alienee to seek equitable relief. Suit filed by the plaintiff for partial partition without including all the joint family properties was bad in law.” 26. The learned Single Judge of trial Court, in the case of Sri. Tukaram vs. Sri. Sambhaji & others2 held that: “ The inclusion of all the joint family properties in the instant suit for partition was necessary and without bringing all the joint family properties into the hatch-pot, the suit for partition of the shares of the members of the joint family in one property which amounts to partial partition is not maintainable. This contention in the circumstances of the case, has force and the same has to be upheld. The reason being, the present suit has been filed by one of the non-alienating co-parceners of the joint family property. The suit has been filed by the non-alienation co-parcener with respect to the only property which has been 2 ILR 1998 KAR 681 - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 alienated. This is not a suit for general partition. The contention of the alienees is to the effect that if the share of the plaintiff to be worked out if all the joint family properties had been included in the schedule then, at a partition, the share of the 1st defendant would have been worked out in order to give equitable relief to the alienees also as they have purchased the property by the 1st defendant. In that view of the matter, the present suit filed by the plaintiff without including all the joint family properties and which prejudices the rights of the alienees who have also been impleaded as parties to the suit, in the circumstances of the case, has to be held that the suit filed by the plaintiff for partial partition without including all the joint family properties is bad in law”. In view of the law laid down in the above said judgments as well as settled principle of law that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable, the trial Court rightly held that suit was not maintainable for non- inclusion of all the joint family properties. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 As already discussed above, plaintiffs have not impleaded all the necessary parties to the suit. In view of the said reasons, the suit is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 27. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.Laxmangoud and others vs. M. Narsangoud and others, in RFA.No.913/2010 dated 19.01.2012, held that: “ The plaintiffs have got three sisters. They are not made as parties. After 1956 the daughters have an equal share in the father’s property. Therefore in a suit for partition all the persons who are entitled to a share are necessary parties. If they are not made parties there cannot be an effective decree for partition. Daughters are necessary parties and not proper parties and therefore question of impleading them at the stage of final decree proceedings is impermissible. Therefore the trial Court was justified in holding the suit for partition is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties”. 28. In view of the said law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the suit is bad in law for - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 non-inclusion of necessary members of the family for effective partition and separate possession of suit schedule property and other properties. Considering these facts, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit as not maintainable. We do not find any reason to interfere in the said finding. Plaintiffs-appellants have not approached the Court with clean hand. They have targeted only defendant No.3 who is the purchaser of the suit property and filed this suit. They did not include other joint family properties and filed the suit for general partition. Since the suit is dismissed on technical grounds, which is upheld by this Court, there is no need to discuss in detail about the sale of the property by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3. 29. The appellants have filed I.A.No.2/2018 under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to produce Birth certificates of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. The said application is supported by an affidavit of plaintiff No.1, wherein he contends that they sincerely believe the said - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 document may enable the Court to pass the judgment effectively. Hence seeks permission to produce additional evidence. 30. No reasons are assigned as to why these documents were not produced before the trial Court. It is not their case that with all due diligence they could not produce the said documents. On the contrary, he has casually stated that he thought that the said documents are not relevant; therefore, he did not produce them before the trial Court. Such contentions are not tenable. In case of production of additional evidence before the appellate Court, applicant should make out a strong ground as provided under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC. No such valid reasons are assigned to permit the appellants to produce additional evidence. Hence, application deserves to be rejected. 31. For the aforesaid discussion, we pass the following: - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1654-DB RFA No. 100249 of 2018 ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed. Both the parties shall bare their own costs. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018, passed by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, in O.S.No.16/2014, is confirmed. (iii) I.A.No.2/2018 filed under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC is dismissed. Registry is directed to send back the records to trial Court along with the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7