Karnataka High Court
Raghu T Nandan vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation on 21 November, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47339
MSA No. 64 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2021 (RO)
BETWEEN:
1. RAGHU T NANDAN
S/O R.S. THIPPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2. SHRUTHI T NANDINI
W/O SRINIVASAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT
RANGASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
Y N HOSAKOTE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
NOW BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
Digitally signed by
RAMYA D
JYOTHI NAGAR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
SIRA TOWN,
KARNATAKA TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
NEAR BASAVESHWARA THEATER,
CHITRADURGA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47339
MSA No. 64 of 2021
R BABU S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHITRADURGA TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 501
2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
ZONAL OFFICE RAYAPUR,
DHARWAD,
(EARLIER IT WAS TAGGED TO BANGALORE),
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 086.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
THIMMAIAH ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 052.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALIPATIL P S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MSA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2021
PASSED IN RA.No.6/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
DISMISSING THE SUIT AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 06.08.2019 PASSED IN OS No. 384/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
PAVAGADA, DECREEING THE SUIT AND REMANDING BACK THE
MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:47339
MSA No. 64 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by the
plaintiffs calling in question the judgment and decree
dated 09.09.2021 passed in RA.No.6/2020 by the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, thereby the judgment
and award dated 06.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.384/2017
by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Pavagada, is set aside
and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh
consideration.
2. The ranks of the parties, is as stated before the
trial Court for easy reference and convenience.
3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent
injunction against the defendants. The defendants
appeared through their counsel and filed the written
statement. The trial Court has framed issues and received
the evidence of P.W.1 in examination-in-chief. After
NC: 2024:KHC:47339
completion of examination-in-chief of P.W.1/plaintiff No.1,
the matter was posted for cross-examination and only one
date is given to the defendants to cross-examine PW.1 on
19.7.2019, but on that day, learned counsel for the
defendants was absent. Therefore, by recording that there
is no cross-examination of P.W.1, hence, posted the
matter for argument on 23.07.2019 and subsequently, on
30.07.2019, the trial Court has pronounced the judgment
and decree.
4. This is questioned by the defendants in the
appeal and the First Appellate Court after perusing the
order sheet maintained in the suit found that there was no
sufficient opportunity given to the defendants for cross-
examination of PW.1. Hence, set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the case to
the trial Court for fresh consideration after giving
opportunity to the defendants. Now this is the order
under challenge by the plaintiffs.
NC: 2024:KHC:47339
5. Upon considering the records available to this
Court, first plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and he has given
evidence for examination-in-chief only. For cross-
examination, the matter was posted on 19.07.2019, but
on that day, there was no representation from the
defendants' side for cross-examination of PW.1. Hence,
the Court has recorded that there is no cross-examination
of PW.1 by the defendants and posted the matter for
argument on 23.07.2019 and on the next date on
30.07.2019, the judgment was pronounced. Therefore, by
considering the dates of events maintained in the order
sheet in the suit, only one opportunity was given to the
defendants to cross-examine P.W.1.
6. Therefore, the reason assigned by the First
Appellate Court is that there was no sufficient opportunity
given for cross-examination of P.W.1. Accordingly,
remanded the matter to the trial Court, which is found to
be justifiable. Hence, the remand order made by the First
Appellate Court is correct and justified. Therefore, the
NC: 2024:KHC:47339
appeal filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. Both the parties shall be present before the trial
Court on 16.12.2024 without expecting notice
from the trial Court.
iii. The trial Court shall make every endeavor to
dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible
not later than nine months from the date of
appearance of the parties in the suit.
iv. No order as to costs.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PB
