- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1571 OF 2023 (SP) BETWEEN: SMT. LATHA W/O P. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2996 2ND CROSS, SHADHABNAGAR, KAVALBYSANDRA, RT NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAHUL DEV S, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K.V. RAVINDRA S/O K.R. VENKATESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 415/2/2, 4TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. SRIDHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. JAYALAKSHMI A, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.06.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.3088/2016 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.3088/2016 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.06.2022 passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for specific performance of sale agreement dated 20.02.2014 and for other reliefs in relation to suit schedule immovable property was decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 3. Both sides having filed the relevant trial Court records and submit that the matter may be taken up for final disposal. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking specific performance of sale agreement dated 20.02.2014 and for other reliefs. The said suit was contested by the appellant/defendant, who filed her written statement pursuant to which the trial Court framed the following issues. "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had executed agreement of sale dated 22.02.2014 agreeing to sell suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he had paid a sum of Rs.8,00,00/- as part of sale consideration? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 4. Whether the defendant proves that she had borrowed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff? 5. Whether the defendant proves that she had handed over a blank signed document to the plaintiff which was converted into the agreement of sale dated 22.02.2014? 6. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief of specific performance? 7. What Order or Decree? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 5. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and documentary evidence at Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. The appellant/defendant did not cross examine PW1 nor did the appellant/defendant adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. Under these circumstances, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree upholding the claim of the plaintiff and decreeing the suit in his favour against the appellant/defendant, who is before this court by way of the present appeal. 6. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant has filed an application on I.A.No.1/25 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) for permission to produce additional documents. The said application is vehemently opposed by the respondent/plaintiff. 7. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal. 1) Whether the application I.A.No.1/25 filed by the appellant/defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC for permission to produce - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 additional documents and to examine witnesses deserves to be allowed ? 2) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal. Re-Point No.(1):- 8. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that as stated supra, despite having contested the suit by filing the written statement, the appellant/defendant did not choose to cross- examine PW1 nor contest the suit any further by adducing any defence evidence, which resulted in the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in his favour against the appellant/defendant. The appellant has filed the instant application seeking permission to produce additional documents inter alia contending that though the said documents had been furnished/entrusted to her counsel before the trial Court, the same were not produced and the learned counsel did not inform the appellant about the progress of the case resulting in the impugned judgment and decree. It is contended that the additional documents sought to be produced along with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 I.A.No.1/25 are relevant and valid for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and as such it is necessary with the said application is allowed and the appellant is permitted to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of her defence including cross examining the plaintiff and/or his witnesses. 8.1 Though the said application is vehemently opposed by the respondent, it is a matter of record that except filing the written statement, the appellant/defendant did not contest the suit further and not only did she not cross-examine PW1, but the defendant also did not adduce any evidence in support of her defence. In this context, it is relevant to state that the affidavit in support of the application, I.A.No.1/2025 makes out valid and sufficient ground/cause to enable the appellant/defendant to seek the indulgence of this Court by producing additional evidence. It is also pertinent to note that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant/defendant to produce the said documents before the trial Court was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, apart from the fact that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 said documents are prima facie relevant and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties particularly when the appellant did not adduce any defence evidence before the trial Court. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the application of I.A.No.1/25 filed by the appellant/plaintiff for production of additional evidence deserves to be allowed and accordingly the same is hereby allowed. Accordingly, Point No.(1) is answered in favour of the appellant by allowing I.A.No.1/2025. Re-Point No.(2):- 9. The next question that arises for consideration is the procedure to be adopted by this Court pursuant to allowing the application filed by the appellant and I.A.No.1/2025 for additional evidence. In this context, it would be profitable to extract Order XLI Rule 28 of the CPC, which reads as under: "28. Mode of taking additional evidence.—Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the Appellate Court may either take such evidence, or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, or any other subordinate Court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 9.1 In the instant case, as stated supra, apart from not leading oral and documentary evidence in support of her defence, the appellant also did not cross-examine PW1 nor contest the matter subsequent to the respondent/plaintiff examining himself as PW1. Under these circumstances, in order to do substantial justice and to provide one more opportunity to the appellant/defendant to contest the suit on merits and to also enable the respondent to adduce additional evidence, if any, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to exercise my powers under Section 107 of the CPC read with Order XLI Rule 23A, 27, 28 and 33 of the CPC and set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law by leaving open all contentions within a stipulated time frame. Accordingly Point No.(2) is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and remitting the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment and decree dated 06.06.2022 passed by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC is hereby allowed and the documents produced along with the application are received on record. (v) The Registry of this Court is directed to transmit the application of I.A.No.1/2025 along with the documents produced with the same to the trial Court to proceed further, in accordance with law. (vi) The appellant and respondent undertake to appear before the trial Court without awaiting further notice on 10.11.2025. (vii) The appellant is directed to cross-examine PW1 and any other witness to be examined by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39984 RFA No. 1571 of 2023 the respondent, if any, on the date to be fixed by the trial Court. (viii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both appellant and respondent to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. (ix) Registry of this Court is directed to refund the entire court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal back to the appellant, forthwith, without any delay. (x) All rival contentions on all aspects of matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/de-merits of the rival contentions. (xi) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from 10.11.2025. (xii) Registry is directed to retransmit the Trial Court Records to the trial Court, forthwith. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK