- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10818 WP No. 5778 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5778 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. CLARA D'SOUZA D/O. THOMAS D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. MR. DAVIN PINTO S/O LATE BENEDICTA D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT 'MEREARA HILLS' KADRI, MANGALURU-575 002 (DK). …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUMATHI CHIDANANDA W/O. CHIDANANDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT "MEREARA HILLS" KADRI, MANGALURU-575 002 (DK). …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UDNER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2026 ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/SEC.151 OF CPC., IN R.A.NO.291/2004 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU (VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO WRIT PETITION), ETC. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10818 WP No. 5778 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 1. This petition by respondent No.3 and 4(a) in R.A.No.291/2004 is directed against the impugned order dated 29.01.2006 whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of CPC raising maintainability of the appeal was rejected by the First Appellate Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners -plaintiffs having instituted a suit against the respondent-defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The respondent-defendant not only contested the suit, but also put forth a counter claim. The trial Court having been decreed the said suit in favour of the petitioners and the counter claim having been dismissed by the trial Court, the respondent filed an appeal in R.A.No.291/2004, which was allowed by the First Appellate Court and assailed by the petitioners herein in RSA No.1564/2013, in which this Court set aside the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.291/2004 and remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Court for reconsideration of the appeal in accordance with law. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10818 WP No. 5778 of 2026 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, subsequent to the remand by this Court, the petitioners filed the present application inter alia contending that the trial Court had passed two separate decrees, namely: (i) a decree in favour of the petitioners–plaintiffs against the respondent–defendant; and (ii) an independent decree dismissing the counterclaim filed by the respondent–defendant against the petitioners. It is therefore contended that, instead of preferring a single appeal in R.A. No.291/2004, the respondent ought to have filed two independent appeals, and that a single / solitary / composite appeal was not maintainable in law. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the First Appellate Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the same on the ground that the issue regarding the maintainability ought to have been raised earlier before remand and it was not permissible in law to raise the said ground after remand. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has adressed his arguments in the main appeal and that the matter is now posted for arguments of the petitioners and all rival contentions between the parties, including the issue relating to the maintainability of a single/composite appeal, may be left open to be decided by the First Appellate Court in accordance with law. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, without expressing any - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10818 WP No. 5778 of 2026 opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by clarifying that the First Appellate Court shall consider and pass appropriate orders on all rival contentions urged by both sides, including the maintainability / non-maintainability of a single / composite appeal in R.A.No.291/2004, in accordance with law and after hearing both sides. 5. All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter, including the maintainability / non-maintainability of the appeal as urged by the parties, are kept open to be decided by the First Appellate Court in accordance with law. 6. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13