Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH J
Chikkabasavaiah, S/o Late Thimmappa – Appellant
Versus
Shanthamma, D/o Mahalingiah @ Mahalingappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. This miscellaneous second appeal is filed challenging the remand order passed by the First Appellate Court in allowing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 which were filed before the First Appellate Court seeking permission to file the written statement as well as to appoint the Court Commissioner under Section 151 of CPC and under Order26 Rule 10-A of CPC respectively.
3. The First Appellate Court while considering the regular appeal considered I.A.No.1 filed by defendant Nos.1 to 6 under Section 151 of CPC and also I.A.No.2 filed under Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC wherein an application is filed praying the Court to receive the written statement as well as appoint a Court Commissioner. Those two applications are resisted by the respondent in appeal by filing statement of objections to the application under Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC only. The counsel for the appellant submits that the copy of application filed under Section 151 of CPC was not served on him. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the applications as well as the statement of objections on I.As., framed the points for
The court emphasized that late applications for written statements and expert analysis must be scrutinized to prevent abuse of process, especially where significant delays are evident.
The First Appellate Court erred in allowing an amendment of the plaint after extensive litigation, disregarding previous findings on the legal status of the parties involved.
The court held that failure to file a written statement after appearing constitutes an uncontested decree, justifying remand for fair trial.
Remand orders must adhere to strict procedural requirements; mere routine remanding without due diligence in evidence withholding is impermissible.
The defendants were entitled to file a written statement and cross-examine witnesses even without filing the written statement, and the Court must consider their reasonable cause for not filing the w....
A court may compare handwriting under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act without requiring expert testimony, provided there is sufficient circumstantial evidence.
Withdrawal of a suit post-adjudication at the appellate stage requires strong justification to avoid prejudicing vested rights established by a prior decree.
The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally to ensure effective adjudication of the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice to the other si....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
