- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34681 MFA No. 5548 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5548 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: VENUGOPAL S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED 59 YEARS R/O G. DODDI, LAKSHMIPURA POST TALUK AND DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 561 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKARALINGAPPA S/O GAVISIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE TIRUPATHI POST, KASABA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 103. 2. ASHOK S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O MALLAGATTA VILLAGE SINGATAGERE HOBLI, KADUR TALUK DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 548. 3. THE TAHASILDAR ARASIKERE TALUK ARSIKERE, HASSAN - 573 103 Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34681 MFA No. 5548 of 2023 4. THE SUB DIVISION OFFICER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN - 573 201. 5. THE TALUK SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA ARSIKERE, DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 103. 6. THE CO-DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201. 7. JAYALAXMAMMA W/O N. NARASIMHAIAH AGED 75 YEARS 8. RUKAMANI P D/O N. NARASIMHAIAH AGED 62 YEARS 9. DHANALAXMI D/O N NARASIMHAIAH AGED 48 YEARS 10. MANJULA AGED 40 YEARS W/O N. MOHANKUMAR 11. GURURAJ AGED 18 YEARS S/O N. MOHANKUMAR 12. DIVAKAR AGED 16 YEARS S/O N. MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 12 ARE R/O G DODDI, LAKSHMIPURA POST, TALUK AND DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 561 201. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34681 MFA No. 5548 of 2023 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.37/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ARSIKERE. ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.303/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT ARSIKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The impugned order is passed under Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC allowing the appeal and remanded the appeal to the trial Court. Therefore, the MFA is not maintainable under Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC. 2. Therefore, this MFA is not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file appropriate appeal before the appropriate forum. 3. The time spent for prosecuting the appeal before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34681 MFA No. 5548 of 2023 4. For statistical purpose, the appeal is disposed of. Registry is directed to return all the certified copies to the appellant. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA CT: BHK