IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.382/2019 (MON)

BETWEEN:

SRI. ANNAPURNESWARI GINNING AND PRESSING INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.

a. SRI. VISHWANATH B. PATIL Digitally signed by S/O BABU RAO PATIL ARSHIFA BAHAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

KHANAM Location: HIGH b. SMT. AMRUTA V. PATIL COURT OF KARNATAKA W/O SRI. VISHWANATH B. PATIL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/O NO.110/5F RMC LINK ROAD, DAVANAGERE -577 001.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. UDAYA KRISHNA MILLS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.

a. SRI. A. SUBRAMANIAN S/O S. ARMUGA GOUNDER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

b. SMT. S. MEENA AGED MAJOR.

BOTH R/O. 7-A, EAST STREET KARUGAM PALAYAM ICHIPATTY POST, VIA SOMANUR -641668 TIRUPUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAM SINGH K, ADV., FOR R1(a & b))

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DAVANAGERE IN O.S.NO.198/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS I.A.NO.2 AND REMIT THE SUIT FOR DISPOSAL AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

13.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section

96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') challenging the order dated 22.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.198/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court').

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellants filed suit for recovery of Rs.26,07,956/- together with current and future interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on Rs.22,54,160/- from the date of suit till realization. In the said suit, the respondents- defendants filed an application - I.A.No.II under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of plaint, which came to be allowed under the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs are in appeal.

3. Sri.R.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs submits that the trial Court committed a grave error in rejecting the plaint by considering the averments made in the written statement. It is submitted that the plaint was rejected for non production of prior permission from the market committee as required under Section 84(4) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, (for short, 'APMC Act'), which is incorrect. It is further submitted that the trial Court ought to have framed an issue and allowed the plaintiffs to adduce evidence and meanwhile they would have produced the permission from the marketing committee. It is also submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Mahantayya Basalingayya Koppal vs. Sri.Kottureswar & Co., 1972 (1) KAR.LJ 555 and submits that the production of permission from the marketing committee is a curable defect and now the appellants have produced the same

with the appeal and the suit being within the period of limitation, the production of certificate is also within the limitation period, hence, appeal is required to be allowed by remanding the matter back to the trial Court to consider the suit on merits. It is also submitted that the appeal is a continuation of suit, hence, the same principle applies to appeals also and the Court is also required to take into account subsequent events and in support of said preposition, he placed reliance on the decision of t