- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2021 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NANDAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE M.GOVINDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.41, 3RD CROSS, 10TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038. 2. SMT. KOKILA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SMT. NANDAMMA, WIFE OF SRI.VINOD KUMAR REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.41, 3RD CROSS, 10TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. R. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE V. RAMAIAH REDDY, R Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 RESIDING AT NO.18 (D), 5TH MAIN, SANTHRUPTHINAGAR, J.P.NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU. 2. SRI. R. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF SRI. B. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO. 1052, ‘BHOOMIKA’, 7TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029. 3. SRI. A.V.ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF SRI.VENKATA REDDY, RESIDING AT PANATHUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1[NOC]; SRI. H K PAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 IS SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.04.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4170/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The Regular First Appeal is filed by defendant Nos.3 and 4 calling in question the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2021 passed in O.S.No.4170/2008 by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 36) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short), whereby, the suit is filed for declaration, possession and injunction came to be decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and possession stating that the plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule property through a registered Will dated 09.10.1968 through his grand father and thus, the plaintiff become owner and is in possession of the suit schedule - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 property. Defendant No.2 is the son of Smt.Nanjamma, who is daughter of grand father Sri. Annoji. 4. It is case of the plaintiff that both defendant Nos.1 and 2 have played fraud on the guise that there is a kharab entries in the revenue records of the suit property and the other properties. Therefore, he said the plaintiff to execute some documents and taken the plaintiff to get registered some documents and at that time, the plaintiff was under impression that these exercises were made for the purpose of making necessary corrections in revenue records, but fraudulently has obtained signature on the sale deeds. Thus, got registered sale deed. Thus, in this way, the alleged sale deed executed showing that the plaintiff has sold the property in favour of defendant No.1. For which, defendant No.2 has helped defendant No.1 and making willing the plaintiff that it is for correction of necessary revenue records. Thereafter, defendant No.1 has sold the property to defendant No.3 and defendant No.3 has sold and has gifted the property to defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 No.4 her daughter. Therefore, with these facts, produced the plaint and submitted that defendant No.1 has played fraud with the plaintiff and got registered sale deed and therefore, the entire sale transaction through sale deed is fraudulent one and thus filed the suit for declaration. 5. The defendants have filed the written statement and contest the suit by denying all the averments in the plaint. The defendants submitted that the sale transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is genuine one and defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser. With these pleadings in the written statement, the defendants prays to dismiss the suit. 6. Based on the pleading of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered Will dated 09.10.1968? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the sale deed dated 15.05.2006 and 14.12.2007 are null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff? 3. Whether the first defendant proves that, he purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 15.05.2006 from the plaintiff and in turn sold the same to the 3rd defendant under the registered sale deed dated 14.12.2007 and who in turn gifted it in favour of the 4th defendant on 17.03.2010? 4. Whether the defendants prove that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled fro the reliefs as prayed for? 6. What Order or Decree? Additional Issues 1. Does the plaintiff proves the gift deeds dated 17.03.2010 bearing Nos.6321/2009-2010, 6323/2009-2010, 6327/2009-2010 and dated 19.03.2010 bearing Nos.6412/2009-2010 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 6415/2009-1010 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of suit property to be void?" 7. Plaintiff is examined as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.36. Defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 and D1(a). The trial Court decreed the suit as against the defendants. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, defendant Nos.3 and 4 have preferred the present appeal by rising various grounds and learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendant Nos.3 and 4 in consonance with the grounds urged in the appeal, submitted that defendant No.3 has not been given opportunity to lead evidence. Though defendant No.3 filed an application for leading evidence but her application was erroneously rejected. Therefore, even defendant No.3 is contesting party and also having interest over the property, she ought to have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 been given opportunity to lead evidence but the trial Court has denied defendant No.3 to lead evidence. Therefore, it would prejudice the rights and interest of defendant Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, prays to remand the case to the trial Court. 9. He further submitted that after completion of evidence from both sides, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted certified copies of two sale deeds and the trial Court without affording an opportunity to the defendants, has proceeded further itself marking as Exs.C- 1 and C-2 and based on these documents, the decree is passed. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the trial Court is unknown as per Code of Civil Procedure and Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice. Therefore, on these two grounds, prays to remand the case to the trial Court enabling defendant Nos.3 and 4 to lead evidence. Therefore, prays to remand the case. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court has followed all the procedures and after receiving evidence in full from both the sides, has passed the judgment and decree in decreeing the suit. Further, submitted that when defendant No.3 filed an application to lead evidence and her application was rejected, then defendant No.3 ought to have challenged the said order but she has waived a right to challenge the said order of rejection to lead evidence. Therefore, now at this stage, she is estopped to challenge the said order of the trial Court. Further submitted that, Exs.C1 and C2 are the certified copies of the two sale deeds and are found to be secondary evidence and placing reliance on the said documents and hence there is no prejudice caused to the defendants. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed is well reasoned one, which needs no interference by this Court. Hence pays to dismiss the appeal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 11. He further submitted that the trial Court has provided an opportunity to defendant No.3 during the course of argument to make cross-examination on those documents of Exs.C1 and C2. Therefore, there would not be caused any prejudice to the defendants, particularly, defendant Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the both the parties and perusal of the materials available on record, the following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the Trial Court is correct in rejecting the application of defendant No.3 filed for leading evidence on the reason that defendant Nos.3 has bequeathed property to defendant No.4? 2) Whether the facts and circumstances involved in the above case, the Trial Court is correct in adopting the recourse that after completion of trial from both sides and during course of argument, receiving the two certified copies of the registered sale - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 deeds and marking as Exs.C1 and Exs.C2., without giving an opportunity to defendant Nos.3 and 4 to lead evidence to make cross-examine on these two documents? 3) Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is required to be set-aside by remanding the case to the trial for fresh disposal? 13. Upon the arguments considered by both the sides, at this stage, the Court is restrained to make any observation on the merits involved in the case. The Court is concerned only with the procedure adopted by the trial Court in conducting the trial. The defendant No.3 is purchaser of the property from defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has given evidence, but he has already parted the property in favour of defendant No.3. Therefore, after purchasing the property from defendant No.1, the defendant No.3 is having right, title and interest over the property. Therefore, defendant No.3 has to defend the case effectively. Therefore, even defendant No.3 has filed an application requesting the Court to lead evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the application on - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 the reason that she has gifted the suit property in favour of defendant No.4. This observation made by the trial Court and rejecting the application of defendant No.3 to lead evidence is not correct. Execution of gift deed by defendant Nos.3 to defendant 4 is consequential effect, when defendant No.3 has purchased the property from defendant No.1 and she acquired title and having interest over the property. Therefore, defendant No.3 ought to have been given opportunity to lead evidence. Therefore, without appreciating the evidence straight way proceeding with the case and passing the judgment and decree is not correct. Though defendant No.3 has not challenged the said rejection application for leading evidence, it is not amounting to waiver of her claim, since defendant No.3 has every right to raise grounds that rejection of application of leading evidence is not correct in the appeal also, as the said rejection of application would seriously cause prejudice against defendant No.3. Therefore, just because defendant No.3 has not challenged the rejection - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 of application for leading evidence is not a ground to say that defendant No.3 waived her right. Therefore, in this regard, the trial Court committed an error. Therefore, on this ground, the judgment and decree of the trial Court requires interference and is liable to be set-aside. 14. Further, the trial Court has considered the two sale deeds of neighboring lands of the suit schedule land and marking itself as Exs.C1 & C2 without giving opportunity to the defendants to make comment upon it is not correct approach. The evidence on record discloses that after completion of the trial for both the sides and when the suit was set down for argument, at that moment, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC for production of two documents, which are certified copies of the sale deeds by reopening the case by recalling the PW.1 as under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC. When the plaintiff has filed application for recalling P.W.1 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC and was intending to produce two certified copies of sale deeds then the trial - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 Court ought to have recalled PW.1 or reject the application. But without dong these two recourses, straightway has considered the same as Exs.C1 and C2 without recalling PW.1 and without giving an opportunity for cross examine PW.1 on these two documents, certainly it would cause prejudice to the defendants Nos.3 and 4. 15. Whenever, a party in the suit makes application for production of documents and placing them on record as exhibits during the course of trial is not empty-formality but marking of document has its own significance and importance. Marking document during trial is not mere giving number as an exhibit but it is recourse inviting other side to make comment and appreciation upon it. 16. But without inviting other side to comment upon the document, the trial Court straight way considering and appreciating the document is not correct approach. The purpose of marking of document amounts to inviting other side to make comment upon it and appreciate it. The trial Court has straight way considering - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 the documents which is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. 17. In this regard, Chapter 11 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 deals with the documents. Rules 69 to 75 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, stipulated as follows: 69. (1) The Court may if it requires, direct the parties to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, on such date prior to the settlement of issues as may be specified by the Court. (2) Without prejudice to what is contained in sub-rule (1), the Court may fix any date within a period of fifteen days from the date of the settlement of issues, for the production by the parties of such documents (including certified copies of public documents) on which they intend to rely and which have not been produced earlier; provided that the Court, for good cause shown to its satisfaction for the non- production thereof, may, after recording the reasons for so doing, permit production of documents at any subsequent time. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 70. (1) Whenever a party or his pleader produces documents into Court, he shall do so with a list in triplicate in Form No.5 of the Appendix H in the First Schedule of the Code. The list together with the documents shall be produced before the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court. The original list with the duplicate shall be retained in the Court (the duplicate being for delivery to the opposite side) and the triplicate shall after scrutiny be returned to the person producing it with the signature of the Chief Ministerial Officer who receives the documents. Where there are numerous parties on the opposite side, represented by different pleaders, a sufficient number of copies of such list shall be furnished by the party producing the documents for being delivered to pleaders appearing for the several parties. (2) The Chief Ministerial Officer shall provide for the proper custody of the documents so received. He shall himself make entries or cause entries to be made by some other official under his direction, in the order sheet of the case in which the documents have been produced, mentioning the date on which the list or lists of documents have been produced and the number of documents produced. Within three days after the documents have been - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 received, the list or lists together with the order sheet in which entries as above have been made, shall be placed before the Presiding Officer of the Court, who shall affix his initials together with the date, to the list or lists and to the said entries in the order sheet. 71. The plaintiff in a suit shall file with the original document of which the suit is based, copy of the same duly certified by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the 33 Court that it has been compared with the original and found correct. The original shall be in the custody of the Chief Ministerial Officer and the copy in the file. 72. At the time of receiving the plaint, if an endorsement of payment or acknowledgement of liability is found to have been made on the document on which the suit is based, the substance of such endorsement shall be noted in the order sheet by the Chief Ministerial Officer and if there is no such endorsement such fact shall also be noted by him, so as to prevent tampering with the document in the office during the pendency of the suit. 73. 73. If a document produced in Court appears to be defaced, torn or in any way damaged or where its condition or appearance - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 requires special notice, a note of its condition and appearance shall be made, at the time of its production, in the list of documents by the officer receiving the same. If there is no such list, such note shall be made in the order sheet. 74. When a party to a suit produces any original document, on which any punter-claim or set off is based, he must produce with it a copy of the document. If the counter-claim or set off is based only on any endorsement on a registered document, a copy of such endorsement may be filed. 75. (1) When a document of historical or antiquarian interest is produced or tendered in evidence, the Court shall make every possible endeavour to prevent its being defaced by endorsement or exhibit marks or by having the seal of the court impressed upon it. In case the parties agree a photostat copy may be substituted for the original, or the document may be enclosed in a sealed cover or kept in a locked and sealed box, the necessary particulars being endorsed on such cover or box. (2) Whenever the Court so directs, or at the request of the person producing the same, any share certificate or other valuable security shall be enclosed in a packet and sealed and kept in the safe custody of the Chief Ministerial - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 Officer. The serial number or the exhibit number of every such document contained within and also the name of the clerk who enclosed it in the packet shall be noted on the sealed packet. Therefore the principles are summaried as follows:- Rule 69: 1) The Court may direct the parties to produce all documentary evidence in their possession or control before the settlement of issues on a date fixed by the Court. 2) The Court may also fix any date within a period of 15 days from the date of settlement of issues for the production of documents that were not produced earlier. Such documents may include certified copies of public document. or The Court may also allow parties upto 15 days after settlement of issues to produce documents including certified copies of public documents. If they were not produced earlier, if the parties fails to produce documents within the prescribed time the Court may permit their later production only if. • Sufficient cause of the delay is shown. • The Court records reasons for granting such permission. Rule 70: 1) Whenever a party or his pleader produce document into Court he shall do so with a list in - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 triplicate is form No.5 of the appendix H in the 1st Schedule of the Code. • Documents must be produced with original duplicate and triplicate lists. • Original list is kept with the documents • Duplicate is given to the opposite party. • Triplicate signed by the Chief Ministerial Officer is returned on acknowledgment. • If there are multiple opposite parties sufficient copies of the list must be provided. • Chief Ministerial Officer is responsible for safe custody of documents. • Chief Ministerial Officer records the date and number of documents in the order sheet. • Within 3 days the documents and lists must be placed before the presiding Officer for initially and date. Rule 71: • The plaintiff shall file a certified copy of original document on which the suit is based. • The copy must be certified by Chief Ministerial Officer after compared with the original. • Original remains in the custody of Chief Ministerial Officer Certified copy is kept in the case file. Rule 72 : At the time of receiving the plaint, the Chief Ministerial Officer checks for any endorsement is absence recorded in the order sheet. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 • This is done to prevent tampering with the document during the pendency of the suit. Rule 73: If a documents is defaced, or damaged or requires special notice. Its condition must be recorded at the time of production. • The note should be made in the list of documents. • If note is available the note should be entered in the order sheet. Rule 74: • A party producing an original document on which a counter claim/set-off is based must also produce a copy of that document. • If a counter claim or set off is based only on an endorsement on a registered document. A copy of the endorsement may be filed instead of the original. Rule 75: • Court must protect historical or antiquarian documents from damage. • Avoid defacing them with exhibits marks, endorsement or Court seals. • With parties consent use a photostat copy instead of the original. • Keep the originals in a sealed cover or locked and sealed box with necessary particulars. • Share certificates and other valuable securities may be sealed in a packet. • They must be kept in the custody of Chief Ministerial Officer. • The sealed packet must be mentioned. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 • Serial Nos./exhibit number of the documents. • Name of the clerks who sealed the packet. 18. Order XIII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes procedure for production, impounding and return of documents. Order XIII prescribes original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues. Therefore, whatever document evidence to be placed before the Court, they shall be produced at the time of settlement of issues or before settlement of issues. The object behind the production of document either at or before framing issues is enabling the other side to look into the documents and making comment on those documents for appreciation of the documentary evidence. Appreciation of documentary evidence in the trial shall be done by the Court, when on such documentary evidence, both parties have their own opinion on it. Therefore, before inviting the Court to make appreciation of documentary evidence on record, both the parties shall look into it and comment upon it for and enabling to make - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 submissions on the said documentary evidence. If this recourse is not adopted and straight way the Court considered and appreciated the documentary evidence, it is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. The following principles of natural justice, either by judicial authority or Quasi judicial authority is fundamental right as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the basis audi alteram partem. 19. There are provisions prescribing production, impounding, documents, rejection of documents, recording of document, with the endorsement and document admit in evidence. Order XIII Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates as follows: 4. Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence:- (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on eery document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely:- (a) the number and title of the suit, - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 (b) the name of the person producing, and (c) the date on which it was produced, and (d) a statement of its having been so admitted, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialed by the Judge. (2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following thereon shall be signed or initialed by the Judge. 20. Therefore, when the document is tendered in the trial in the suit, the duty cast on the Court to make endorsement on documents admitting in evidence. The same is so in case of admitted entries in books, accounts and records as per Sub Rule 5 of Order XIII and for rejected documents the endorsement shall be Rule 6. Therefore, Order XIII of CPC prescribes the procedure for production of documents. Therefore, the Court shall not receive documents according to its whims and fancies. Any violation in following procedure prescribed under Order - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 XIII, deprives the right of parties in the suit amounting to violation of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the trial Court had received documents at the fag end of the trial when the case is posted for argument and itself considered and marked documentary as per Exs.C1 and C2 and appreciated the documents Exs.C1 and C2 without giving any opportunity to defendant Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, defendant Nos.3 and 4 had no occasion to look into the documents at Exs.C1 and C2, which earmarked voluntarily by the Court itself at the time of argument. This is nothing but calling deprivation of right of defendant Nos.3 and 4 of right of audi alteram partem. 21. Therefore, the trial Court committed an error in straightaway accepting the said documents without recalling PW.1 and without giving an opportunity to defendant Nos.3 and 4 to cross-examine PW.1 on those two sale deeds, certainly, it causes prejudice to the defendant Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, keeping defendant Nos.3 and 4 in dark, entertaining the said two documents, - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 marking the said documents as Exs.C1 and C2 by the trial Court itself is not correct approach and this procedure adopted by the trial Court is contrary to the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, on these reasons, the judgment and decree is liable to be set-aside. 22. Therefore, for the reasons as above stated, the matter is required to be remand to the trial Court for fresh disposal of the suit, from the stage of leading evidence of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and also on the documents which are marked as Exs.C1 and C2 by recalling PW.1 if, the plaintiff wants to rely upon these two registered sale deeds. Therefore, with this liberty, the matter is remanded to the trial Court. Accodignly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and point No.3 in the affirmative. 23. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is allowed. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35068 RFA No. 412 of 2021 ii. The judgment and decree dated 30.03.2021 passed in O.S.No.4170/2008 by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36), is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. iv. The trial Court shall record evidence of defendant No.3 and 4 and also shall record evidence on Exs.C1 and C2-two certified copies of sale deeds, after giving an opportunity to both sides, then proceed with the case as per law on its own merits. v. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.08.2026 without expecting any notice from the trial Court. vi. The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit within one year from the date of appearance on 24.08.2026. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE rv, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39