M V Nataraj vs Harish

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Sep 03, 2025

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1652202

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1652202
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V Srishananda
Decided On: Sep 03, 2025
Case Number: MSA/19/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M V Nataraj

Respondent

Harish

Excerpt

.....the appellant in rsa no.1558/2024 would in unison submit that the approach of the first appellate court in confirming the judgment of the trial court by dismissing ra no.19/2021 and remitting the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal in os no.408/2014 by allowing r.a.no.21/2021 has resulted in miscarriage of justice, as both the judgments are contradictory to each other.6. taking note of the fact that the learned judgewho passed the judgment in r.a.no.19/2021 is not the same judge who has passed the judgment in ra no.21/2021 and both the matters were disposed of on two different dates and those contradictory judgments came to be passed. taking note of the same, all that this court is required to do is to set aside both the judgments of the first appellate courts and remit the matter to the first -6- appellate court to be disposed of by clubbing both the matters, in accordance with law.7. accordingly, i pass the following:orderi) msa no.19/2025 and rsa no.1558/2024 are allowed. ii) consequently, the judgment passed in r.a.no.19/2021 dismissing the said appeal and confirming the judgment in o.s.no.408/2014 and judgment passed inr.a.no.21/2021 setting aside the judgmentof the trial court in o.s.no.408/2014 and remitting the matter to the first appellate court are hereby set aside. iii) consequently, ra no.19/2021 and ra no.21/2021 are remitted back to the first appellate court for further disposal, in accordance with law. -7- iv) it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. v) taking note of the fact that the matters are pending from the year 2021 and the suit is of the year 2014, both the parties are directed to appear positively before the first appellate court, without further notice, on 24.09.2025. sd/- (v srishananda) judge bmc list no.: 1 sl no.: 32

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2025 (RO) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1558 OF 2024(DEC/INJ) IN MSA No. 19/2025 BETWEEN: M V NATARAJ S/O M.S. VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MARENAHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Digitally SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) signed by CHANDANA AND: BM
Location:      1.   HARISH
High Court          S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
of Karnataka        AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. THIMMEGOWDA S/O HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
3. MANJAPPA S/O TOPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, -2-
4. KITTY S/O TOPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
5. NANJUNDASWAMY S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MARENAHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 1165. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH.R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE) THIS MSA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.21/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.408/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHNNARAYAPATNA, AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FRAMING OF NECESSARY ADDITIONAL ISSUE.
IN RSA NO. 1558/2024 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.HARISH S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2. SRI THIMMEGOWDA S/O HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. SRI MANJAPPA S/O TOGEPGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4. SRI KITTY S/O TOPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, -3-
5. SRI SRI NANJUNDASWAMY S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.M.V. NATARAJ S/O SRI VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 PASSED IN RA

NO.19/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.408/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAATNA. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA -4-

ORAL JUDGMENT

The judgments involved in present appeals i.e., MSA No.19/2025 and RSA No.1558/2024 are one and the same i.e., the judgment of the Trial Court is one and the same.

2. Heard the arguments of both sides.

3. This Court perused the material on record

meticulously. In both these appeals, what has been challenged is the order passed in R.A.No.20/2021 and R.A.No.19/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna (for short “the First Appellate Court”), wherein the judgment passed in O.S.No.408/2014 was under challenge.

4. While R.A.No.21/2021 was allowed and the

matter is remitted to the Trial Court by the learned Senior Civil Judge, in R.A.No.19/2021, the appeal came to be dismissed upholding the order of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.408/2014. -5-

5. Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel

representing the learned counsel for the appellant in MSA No.19/2025 and Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel representing the appellant in RSA No.1558/2024 would in unison submit that the approach of the First Appellate Court in confirming the judgment of the Trial Court by dismissing RA No.19/2021 and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in OS No.408/2014 by allowing R.A.No.21/2021 has resulted in miscarriage of justice, as both the Judgments are contradictory to each other.

6. Taking note of the fact that the learned judge

who passed the judgment in R.A.No.19/2021 is not the same judge who has passed the judgment in RA No.21/2021 and both the matters were disposed of on two different dates and those contradictory judgments came to be passed. Taking note of the same, all that this court is required to do is to set aside both the judgments of the First Appellate Courts and remit the matter to the First -6- Appellate Court to be disposed of by clubbing both the matters, in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) MSA No.19/2025 and RSA No.1558/2024 are allowed. ii) Consequently, the judgment passed in R.A.No.19/2021 dismissing the said appeal and confirming the judgment in O.S.No.408/2014 and judgment passed in

R.A.No.21/2021 setting aside the judgment

of the Trial Court in O.S.No.408/2014 and remitting the matter to the First Appellate Court are hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, RA No.19/2021 and RA No.21/2021 are remitted back to the First Appellate Court for further disposal, in accordance with law. -7- iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. v) Taking note of the fact that the matters are pending from the year 2021 and the suit is of the year 2014, both the parties are directed to appear positively before the First Appellate Court, without further notice, on 24.09.2025. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties M V Nataraj vs Harish Same Judge V Srishananda