- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33937 RSA No. 1282 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. M.K. ANITHA W/O SRI. H. GOPI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.7/8, RAMAKRISHNA STREET, 2ND CROSS, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NITISH K.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: YESHWANTHPURA BAWASARA AMBA BHAVANI CHARITABLE TRUST, C/O AMBA BHAVANI CHARITABLE TRUST JYOTHI NAGAR, M.S.PALYA, DODDABETTAHALLI, HESARGHATTA ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2022 PASSED IN RA NO.254/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33937 RSA No. 1282 of 2025 DATED 12.04.2018, PASSED ON IA NO. II IN OS NO.862/2015 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Nitish, learned counsel for the appellant. This court did not deem it fit to issue notice of appeal to respondent. 2. Present second appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the first Appellate Court in RA No.254/2020 whereby rejection of the plaint in OS No.862/2015 is set aside and matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 3. Earlier the appellant had filed Miscellaneous Second Appeal against the order of the first appellate Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33937 RSA No. 1282 of 2025 4. Since the order that has been passed by the first appellate Court did not fall within the ambit of Order 43, the said appeal was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty for filing appropriate proceedings. 5. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellant has now filed the present second appeal office has raised objections with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. 6. Having heard the arguments of Sri Nitish on the question of maintainability it is noticed that no final order has been passed in the first appellate Court. 7. Per contra, the order that has been passed by the first appellate Court is setting aside the order of rejection of plaint and remitting the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 8. Such an order is not an appealable order so as to maintain the present second appeal and remedy for the appellant is to challenge the order of remitting the matter to the first appellate Court in accordance with law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33937 RSA No. 1282 of 2025 Reserving such liberty for the appellant, present appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT: BHK