BASSAMMA vs PARAMANNA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11596
WP No. 202068 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030051172026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 202068 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BASSAMMA
W/O LATE HANMANTHARAYA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BANDOLI, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI-
585224.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARAMANNA S/O LATE LACHAMAPPA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BANDOLI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI- 585224.
2. MANAYYA S/O LATE LACHAMAPPA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BANDOLI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI- 585224.
3. BASAMMA
D/O LATE HANMANTHARAYA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC; HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11596
WP No. 202068 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030051172026
4. NEELAMMA
D/O LATE HANMANTHARAYA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
5. BASAMMA
D/O LATE HANMANTHARAYA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. LAXMI D/O LATE HANMANTHARAYA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
7. SHANTAMMA
D/O LATE HANMANTHARAYA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
8. MARAMMA
D/O LATE HANMANTHARAYA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL ARE R/O. BANDOLI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI- 585224.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. BHIMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
V/O DTD. 10.09.2026 NOTICE TO R3 TO R8 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH, I) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
05.03.2026 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSION
JUDGE COURT YADGIR SITTING AT SHORAPUR IN RA
NO.5028/2025 (OLD RA NO.44/2024) ON I.A.NO.III AS AT
ANNEXURE-E TO THE PETITION. II) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER
OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN VIEW
OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11596
WP No. 202068 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030051172026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order passed on
I.A.No.III/2025 dated 05.03.2026 in R.A.No.5028/2025
(Old R.A.No.44/2024) by the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Yadgir sitting at Shorapur.
2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
The petitioner – defendant No.1 filed an appeal
challenging the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.119/2022 dated 24.04.2024 in R.A.No.5028/2025
on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at
Yadgir sitting at Shorapur. In the said appeal the
petitioner filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of
the Code of Civil Procedure for production of additional
evidence. The said application was opposed by the
respondents by filing objections. The Trial Court rejected
the said application vide order dated 05.03.2026. Hence,
this writ petition.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11596
WP No. 202068 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030051172026
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has filed an application under Order XLI Rule
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of
additional evidence. He submits that the First Appellate
Court could have heard the application along with the
main appeal. On the contrary, the Trial Court has heard
the application at the threshold and rejected the
application. The procedure adopted by the First Appellate
Court is contrary to the proposition laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chowdappa vs
Hanumantharayappa and others reported in 2026 Live
Law (SC) 785 . Hence, on these grounds he prays to
allow the writ petition.
Per contra
5. , learned counsel for the respondents
supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss the
writ petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11596
WP No. 202068 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030051172026
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner
aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the suit,
preferred an appeal in R.A.No.5028/2025. The petitioner
filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure for production of additional evidence. It is
well settled law that when an application is filed under
Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure it has to
be heard along with the main appeal. The said application
cannot be decided at a threshold without hearing the
appeal on merits. The procedure adopted by the First
Appellate Court in passing an impugned order without
hearing on the merits of the case has passed an order is
contrary to the law. The impugned order passed by the
First Appellate Court is contrary to the exposition of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the case of
Chowdappa vs Hanumantharayappa and others
reported in 2026 Live Law (SC) 785 . The Hon'ble Apex
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11596
WP No. 202068 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030051172026
Court held that an First Appellate Court has a statutory
duty to deal with an application for additional evidence on
its merits and such application cannot be ignored while the
Court proceeds to pronounce the final judgment and the
said application must be considered simultaneously with
the hearing of the main appeal on its merits to determine
whether require documents to pronounce the judgment or
for any other substantial cause. Thus, the impugned order
passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary and
erroneous.
8. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I am
inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly,
I proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
I. The writ petition is allowed .
II. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11596
WP No. 202068 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030051172026
III. I.A.No.III/2025 is restored to its original file and the
First Appellate Court is directed to consider the
application simultaneously with the hearing of the
main appeal on merits.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
KJJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
CT:PK