High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Partition Suit — Remand for Proper Commissioner Appointment Under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. Lower Appellate Court's Remand Order Set Aside for Not Deciding Merits; Matter Remanded for Fresh Disposal.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Nandareddy, filed a Miscellaneous Second Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, in R.A. No.120/2011 (old R.A. No.20/2008). The lower appellate court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent (defendant in the original suit) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 passed in O.S. No.72/2001 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Malur, remanding the matter to the trial court to appoint a commissioner in accordance with law and to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the original suit, contended that the lower appellate court erred in remanding the case without considering the merits of the appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the lower appellate court's order of remand was improper as it did not decide the appeal on its merits. The court observed that the appellate court should have first examined the correctness of the trial court's judgment before ordering a remand. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and remanded the matter back to the lower appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the parties to appear before that court on 29.08.2016.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Remand - Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC - Lower appellate court allowed appeal and remanded matter for appointment of commissioner without deciding merits - Held that remand order was improper as appellate court should have first determined the correctness of trial court's judgment before ordering remand (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the lower appellate court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial court for appointment of a commissioner without considering the merits of the appeal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree set aside; matter remanded to lower appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law; parties to appear on 29.08.2016.

Law Points

  • Order 26 Rule 9 CPC
  • Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC
  • Partition Suit
  • Remand
  • Commissioner Appointment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (KAR) (08) 14

Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.5/2016 (RO)

2016-08-01

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

M/s. A.G. Shivanna & Associates (for appellant), Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao (for respondent)

Nandareddy

Sarojamma

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against remand order in a partition suit

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of the lower appellate court's judgment and decree remanding the matter

Filing Reason

Lower appellate court allowed appeal and remanded matter for appointment of commissioner without deciding merits

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed suit in O.S. No.72/2001 on 18.12.2007; lower appellate court allowed appeal in R.A. No.120/2011 on 14.10.2015 and remanded matter

Issues

Whether the lower appellate court was justified in remanding the matter without deciding the appeal on merits

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the lower appellate court erred in remanding the case without considering the merits of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

An appellate court should not remand a case without first deciding the appeal on its merits; remand order must be based on a proper determination of the correctness of the trial court's judgment.

Judgment Excerpts

Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Decree of Senior Civil Judge, Malur allowing R.A.No.120/2011. The appeal before the lower Appellate Court was by the defendant, who is the respondent in the present appeal.

Procedural History

Original suit O.S. No.72/2001 was decreed by Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Malur on 18.12.2007. Defendant appealed in R.A. No.120/2011 (old R.A. No.20/2008) which was allowed by Senior Civil Judge, Malur on 14.10.2015, setting aside trial court decree and remanding matter. Plaintiff filed MSA No.5/2016 in High Court of Karnataka.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 43 Rule 1(u), Order 26 Rule 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Partition Suit — Remand for Proper Commissioner Appointment Under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. Lower Appellate Court's Remand Order Set Aside for Not Deciding Merits; Matter Remanded for Fresh Disposal.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Enhancement of Compensation for Agricultural Land Acquired for Konkan Railway Project. Tenant's restricted rights under Agricultural Tenancy Act do not preclude consideration of potential for development for compensation purp...