IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO. 50221/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1 SRI KARAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O MUNISHAMAPPA 2 SMT.NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS W/O MUNISHAMAPPA - BOTH ARE R/A THIRNAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C R SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT KAMALAKSHI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O T.S.CHANNAKESHAVA PRAKASH, R/O THIRNAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK -REP. BY HER P.A.HOLDER T.S.CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O THIRNAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI R KRISHNA REDDY., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), CHICKBALLAPUR IN R.A.NO.37/2010 ON I.A.NO.2 DATED 06.09.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This is defendants writ petition questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 06.09.2014 passed on I.A.No.2 by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chickballapur in R.A.No.37/2010, whereunder the application filed by respondent-plaintiff invoking Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed without assigning reasons.
2. It is needless to state that when an application is filed before the appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, allowing or dismissing of the application would depend upon the circumstances enumerated or stated in the affidavit supporting the application, which should also satisfy the criteria prescribed under Rule 27. It is apt and appropriate to note that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC, the appellate Court is required to record the reasons for admission of additional evidence, if such additional evidence is allowed to be produced by a party to the proceedings. In the instant case, impugned order would disclose that absolutely there are no reasons assigned by the lower appellate Court for allowing the application-I.A.No.2. Hence, impugned order cannot be sustained and application in question is to be remanded back to trial Court.
3. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
(2) Order dated 06.09.2014 passed on I.A.No.2 by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chickballapur in R.A.No.37/2010 is hereby set aside.
(3) Application - I.A.No.2 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in R.A.No.37/2010 is hereby remanded to the jurisdictional Court for being disposed of afresh, keeping in mind observations made hereinabove.
SD/- JUDGE *sp