- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29673 MSA No. 79 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.79 OF 2024 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT KRISHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA 2. MR RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA 3. MR DILIP AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA ALL ARE R/AT MANDIKAL VILLAGE AND HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562104 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O CHIKKA BYRAREDDY R/AT YATAGENAHALLA VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562104 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATHA R HEGDE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29673 MSA No. 79 of 2024 THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2024 PASSED IN RA No.55/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIBANDE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.156/2013 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE, WITH A DIRECTION TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Mohana Chandra P., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vishwanatha R. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present second appeal is filed challenging the order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby the judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.156/2013 is set aside by the First Appellate Court by accepting the additional evidence and remitting the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 3. Sri Mohana Chandra P., learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29673 MSA No. 79 of 2024 contended that the First Appellate Court itself is a Court of records and had the mechanism of recording the evidence and for admitting the additional evidence alone, the matter should not have been remitted to the Trial Court by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the order of remand is unjust and sought for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri Vishwanatha R. Hegde learned counsel for the respondent contends that the additional evidence was utmost necessary for the proper adjudication of the lis between the parties. Therefore, the learned Judge is justified in allowing to produce the additional evidence. 5. Since the opportunity was also reserved for the parties to lead evidence, the order of remand is perfectly justified and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 7. On such perusal of the material on record, the additional evidence that is sought to be placed on record are RTC extract and tax paid receipt. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29673 MSA No. 79 of 2024 8. Solely for the purpose of considering the probative value of the RTC and tax paid receipt, the First Appellate Court was not required to remit the matter to the Trial Court. 9. If at all, the First Appellate Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence is utmost necessary, keeping the appeal pending only finding on additional evidence could have been called by the First Appellate Court from the Trial Court. 10. Instead of recording the additional evidence by the First Appellate Court, remitting the matter by setting aside the entire judgment has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice. Further the impugned order of open remand amounts to unjust remand. Therefore, the order of the First Appellate Court needs to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted to the First Appellate Court itself to record the additional evidence and pass judgment on merits of the matter. 11. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Miscellaneous Second Appeal is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29673 MSA No. 79 of 2024 (ii) The remittance of the suit to the Trial Court for recording the additional evidence in O.S.No.156/2013 by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 is hereby set aside. (iii) The First Appellate Court itself shall record the additional evidence, by upholding the proper opportunity for the parties and thereafter proceed to pass the judgment in accordance with law in the light of the contentions urged by the parties including the additional evidence. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR