SMT. LAXMI W/O. RAMAPPA TUKKANATTI ALIAS SANADI vs SMT. RAYAVVA W/O. LAKKAPPA SANADI ALIAS TUKKANATTI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021
R



CNR: KAHC020161272021
R



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 101384 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:

SMT. LAXMI W/O. RAMAPPA TUKKANATTI @ SANADI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIDAKAL VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591515.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHAGYASHREE N.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. RAYAVVA W/O.LAKKAPPA SANADI @ TUKKANATTI
AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAPALAGUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

2. SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. GULAPPA TURADI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.

3. SMT. KEMPAVVA W/O. HANAMANT MARAPUR
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ITNAL, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

4. SMT.PARAVVAW/O. SHANKAR SHEGUNSHI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ: RAIBAG,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.07.31 12:09:33
+0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

5. SMT.YAMANAVVA W/O. BASAPPA KABBUR
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DHARMATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591333.

6. SMT.CHANDRAVVA W/O. CHANDRAPPA BASALIGUNDI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

7. SHRI SADASHIV S/O. LAKKAPPA TUKKANATTI @ SANADI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

8. SRI BHARAMAPPAS/O. LAKKAPPA TUKKANATTI @ SANADI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

9. SHRI NINGAPPA S/O. LAKKAPPA TUKKANATTI @ SANADI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

10. SHRI HANAMANT S/O. LAKKAPPA TUKKANATTI @ SANADI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

11. SHRI SADASHIV S/O. LAXMAN JAMAGONDA
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

12. KIRAN S/O. RAMAPPA TUKKANATTI @ SANADI
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. KANKANWADI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591515.

13. SMT. NINGAVVA W/O. DHAREPPA SANADI @ TUKKANATTI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


R/O. KANKANWADI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591515.


14. SMT. HALAWWA D/O. DHAREPPA SANADI @ TUKKANATTI
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KANKANWADI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591515.

15. SHRI. DHAREPPA RAMAPPA TUKKANATTI @ SANADI
AGE: YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANKANWADI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591515.

16. SMT. SATAWWA SHIVAPPA KABBUR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DHARMATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591333.

17. SHRI LAKKAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA BASALIGUNDI
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR CATTLE BAZAR, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

18. SHRI MALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA BASALIGUNDI
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR CATTLE BAZAR, MUDALAGI,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

19. SHRI NAGAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA BASALIGUNDI
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR CATTLE BAZAR, MUDALAGI,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

20. SHRI GANAPATI S/O.BHIMAPPA BASALIGUNDI
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR CATTLE BAZAR, MUDALAGI,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

21. SHRI CHANDRAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA BASALIGUNDI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. NEAR CATTLE BAZAR, MUDALAGI,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

22. SHRI SHIVAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA BASALIGUNDI

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANKANWADI VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.

23. SMT. CHANDRAVVA W/O. KENCHAPPALOKURI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DHARMATTI, TQ: GOKAK
DIST: BELAGAVI-591333.

24. SHRI MAYAPPA MAHALINGAPPA WADERHATTI
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BHAIRANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

25. SHRI MAHADEV MAHALINGAPPA WADERHATTI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BHAIRANATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

26. SMT. BALAWWA W/O. PADMANNA KURI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591235.

27. SMT. JANAWWA W/O. YALLAPPA HALINGALI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MUGALKHOD, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI -591235.

28. SMT. KASTURI W/O. NAGAPPA BELLIWARI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HANAGANDI VILLAGE,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.

29. SHRI. SHRIKANT LAXMAN JAMAGONDA
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KAPPALGUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI -591235.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10,
SRI RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R11 & R29,
SMT. PRIYANKA B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R21, 22, 24 & 25,
NOTICE TO R23 HELD SUFFICIENT,
NOTICE TO R12 TO 14, 16 TO 20, 27 AND 28 ARE SERVED)

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 23.03.2021 MADE ON I.A. FILED U/O.VI RULE 17 R/W.
SEC.151 OF CPC IN R.A.NO.134/2008 PASSED BY THE LEANRED
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG AT RAIBAG PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-F AS THE SAME BEING ARBITRARY ERRONEOUS AND
ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff
assailing the order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the lower
Appellate Court in R.A. No.134 of 2008, whereby the
application filed by defendant No.3 seeking amendment of
the written statement came to be allowed, permitting him
to incorporate additional pleadings to the effect that the suit
schedule properties are his self-acquired properties.

2. The application for amendment was filed on the
premise that, although documentary evidence had already
been produced by defendant No.3 in support of his claim of
self-acquisition, there were no specific pleadings in the
written statement to substantiate the said contention.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


Accepting the said plea, the lower Appellate Court allowed
the application while keeping the main appeal pending for
adjudication.

3. This Court, while entertaining the present writ
petition, by an elaborate interim order dated 12.04.2021,
stayed the operation of the impugned order permitting
amendment of the written statement after remand of the
matter by this Court in RSA No.5938 of 2013 connected
with RSA No.5802 of 2013.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned counsel representing the legal
representatives of defendant No.3 and the learned counsel
appearing for the subsequent purchasers. Perused the
records.

5. The records disclose that the suit instituted by the
plaintiff came to be decreed by the Trial Court and the said
judgment and decree were affirmed by the first Appellate
Court in R.A. No.134 of 2008.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021



6. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, defendant
Nos.11 and 12 preferred RSA No.5938 of 2013, while
defendant Nos.1 to 7 preferred RSA No.5802 of 2013. This
Court, while considering the said second appeals, noticed
that the cross-objections filed by defendant Nos.11 and 12,
who claimed to be the widow and children of Dhareppa, had
not at all been considered by the first Appellate Court.
Holding that non-consideration of the cross-objections
vitiated the appellate judgment, this Court set aside the
judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.134 of 2008 and
remitted the matter to the first Appellate Court for fresh
consideration.

7. In the said background, before adverting to the
controversy involved in the present writ petition, this Court
deems it appropriate to extract paragraphs 12 to 15 of the
remand order, which read thus:
“12. It is trite law that the respondent in an
appeal has the right to challenge the findings
recorded against him, by filing cross objections, in an

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


appeal filed against the judgment. The defendant
Nos.11 and 12 i.e. the children of Sattewwa
exercised this right and preferred cross-objections
and challenged the findings rendered in the
judgment regarding their status. Once, the Appellate
Court having condoned the delay in filing the cross-
objection, was duty bound to consider the cross-
objections also. The Appellate Court by ignoring the
cross-objections has committed a serious error in law
and thus the judgments rendered by the Appellate
Court stands vitiated.
13. As a consequence, it would be necessary to
set aside the judgment and decree of the Appellate
Court and remand the matter to the Appellate Court
with a direction to consider not only the appeal filed
by Lakkappa and his children but also the cross-
objections filed by Sattewwa’s children i.e. defendant
Nos.11 and 12 (Janawwa and Kasturi). The matter is
accordingly remanded to the Lower Appellate Court.
14. The Lower Appellate Court, having regard
to the fact that the appeal arises out of a suit of the
year 2001 is requested to make all endeavors to
dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible,
preferably, within a period of six months from the
date of a receipt of copy of this order.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


15. In view of the judgment rendered in RSA
No.5938/2013, the other second appeal in RSA
No.5802/2013, will also have to be allowed since the
judgment suffers from the same infirmity as pointed
out in this order.”


8. A plain reading of the aforesaid directions leaves
no manner of doubt that the remand was ordered solely to
enable the first Appellate Court to adjudicate not only the
regular appeal but also the cross-objections filed by
defendant Nos.11 and 12, which had remained undecided in
the earlier round of litigation.

9. It is after remand that defendant No.3 filed the
present application seeking amendment of the written
statement by incorporating specific pleadings relating to his
claim that the suit schedule properties were his self-
acquired properties. The application was founded on the
contention that evidence had already been adduced by way
of rebuttal in support of such plea and, therefore, the
pleadings required to be suitably amended. The first

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


Appellate Court, accepting the said contention, allowed the
application.

10. It is also submitted across the Bar that,
consequent upon the amendment being allowed, defendant
No.3 was permitted to adduce further evidence in support
of the amended pleadings and that the plaintiff has also
cross-examined the said witness. It is, however, not in
dispute that further proceedings in R.A. No.134 of 2008
stood stayed by virtue of the interim order passed by this
Court on 12.04.2021.

11. This Court has consistently taken the view in a
catena of decisions that, while exercising appellate
jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
the first Appellate Court should ordinarily refrain from
deciding interlocutory applications independently by keeping
the main appeal pending for consideration.

12. The rationale behind the aforesaid principle is that
only when the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


would the Appellate Court be in a position to appreciate the
relevance, necessity and impact of the interlocutory
applications filed by the parties. Such a course would also
enable the Appellate Court to effectively assess whether the
relief sought in the interlocutory application has any bearing
on the ultimate adjudication of the appeal.

13. Viewed from the said perspective, when
defendant No.3 sought amendment of the written
statement at the appellate stage, the proper course for the
first Appellate Court was to direct that the application be
heard along with the main appeal and to call upon the
parties to address arguments on both the appeal and the
amendment application simultaneously.

14. Such a course alone would have enabled the
Appellate Court to examine whether the proposed
amendment deserved to be permitted at the appellate
stage, whether the amendment was necessary for
determining the real controversy between the parties,

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


whether the proposed pleadings were supported by the
existing material on record and, above all, whether allowing
such amendment would occasion serious prejudice to the
plaintiff. It is only upon undertaking such an exercise that
the Appellate Court could have effectively balanced the
competing interests of the parties while ensuring that
substantial justice is advanced and miscarriage of justice is
avoided.

15. The procedure adopted by the first Appellate
Court in deciding the amendment application independently,
while postponing consideration of the main appeal, is
therefore contrary to the settled principles consistently laid
down by this Court governing the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The impugned procedure is, therefore, legally
unsustainable.

16. It is true that, pursuant to the impugned order,
defendant No.3 has already led evidence on the amended

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


pleadings and the plaintiff has also cross-examined him.
Nevertheless, having regard to the procedural irregularity
committed by the first Appellate Court, this Court, though
with some degree of uneasiness, is constrained to interfere
with the impugned order. Consequently, the order allowing
amendment deserves to be set aside with a direction to the
first Appellate Court to hear the amendment application
together with the main appeal and thereafter pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in view
the observations made herein as well as the scope of the
remand order passed in the earlier round of litigation.

17. It is, however, clarified that the order passed by
the first Appellate Court on the application filed under Order
XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not the subject
matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
Consequently, the said order shall abide by and remain
subject to the ultimate decision that may be rendered by
the Appellate Court on the application seeking amendment
of the written statement.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021



18. Before parting with the case, this Court deems it
necessary to reiterate a principle governing the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Despite repeated pronouncements of this Court
emphasizing that a regular first appeal is a continuation of
the original proceedings and constitutes a valuable
statutory right requiring a complete reappreciation of the
entire case on facts and law, this Court has, in recent times,
repeatedly noticed a disturbing trend wherein the first
Appellate Courts are deciding interlocutory applications in
isolation while keeping the main appeal pending for an
indefinite period. Such a practice, in the considered opinion
of this Court, is wholly inconsistent with the very nature and
scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. The first Appellate Court is not merely
required to adjudicate isolated interlocutory disputes, but is
under a statutory obligation to examine the correctness of
the judgment and decree under challenge by undertaking a
comprehensive reappraisal of the pleadings, evidence and

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


findings recorded by the Trial Court. It is only in the course
of such comprehensive examination that the Appellate
Court would be in a position to assess the necessity,
relevance and impact of any interlocutory application on the
ultimate adjudication of the appeal. Questions relating to
amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17,
production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27,
reception of additional documents, impleadment of parties,
appointment of Commissioners or other applications having
a direct bearing on the adjudication of the appeal cannot
ordinarily be divorced from the merits of the appeal itself.
Deciding such applications independently often results in
piecemeal adjudication, unnecessary multiplicity of
proceedings and avoidable supervisory litigation before this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby
frustrating the very object of expeditious disposal of
appeals.

19. The principles governing the exercise of
jurisdiction by the first Appellate Court stand authoritatively

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh
Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari , (2001) 3 SCC 179; Dilip
v. Mohd. Azizul Haq , AIR 2000 SC 1976; Triloki Nath
Singh v. Anirudh Singh , (2020) 6 SCC 629; and V.
Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by LRs., 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 896, wherein it has been consistently held that a
first appeal is a continuation of the suit and the Appellate
Court is duty-bound to independently evaluate the entire
controversy and record its conclusions on all material
issues. The appellate jurisdiction envisaged under Section
96 CPC is, therefore, fundamentally different from the
limited jurisdiction exercised under Section 100 CPC, where
interference is confined to substantial questions of law.
Consequently, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 96
CPC, the Appellate Court should ordinarily avoid
fragmenting the proceedings by deciding substantive
interlocutory applications in advance of the final hearing
unless compelling circumstances so warrant. Any contrary
approach has the potential to prejudge issues which may

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


ultimately become insignificant or require a different
perspective after the appeal itself is heard in its entirety.

20. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion
that a uniform procedural discipline needs to be observed
by all the first Appellate Courts exercising jurisdiction under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, it is
directed that, as a general rule, all interlocutory applications
which have a substantial nexus with the merits of the
appeal, or whose adjudication is likely to influence the
ultimate determination of the appeal, shall be heard along
with the main appeal and disposed of by a common order or
judgment. Applications seeking amendment of pleadings,
production or reception of additional evidence under Order
XLI Rule 27, reception of additional documents,
impleadment of parties, framing of additional issues,
remand, appointment of Commissioners or any other
application which materially affects the adjudication of the
appeal shall ordinarily be tagged with the main appeal and
heard simultaneously. Only those interlocutory applications

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


which require immediate consideration on account of
urgency, or which are purely procedural in nature and have
no bearing on the merits of the appeal, may be disposed of
independently by recording specific reasons justifying such
departure.

21. Accordingly, this Court issues the following
guidelines to all the first Appellate Courts exercising
jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
(i) The first Appellate Court shall ordinarily
refrain from deciding substantive
interlocutory applications independently
while keeping the regular appeal pending.
(ii) Every interlocutory application having a
direct or substantial bearing on the merits
of the appeal shall, as far as practicable, be
tagged with the main appeal and heard
simultaneously at the time of final hearing.

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


(iii) While considering such interlocutory
applications, the Appellate Court shall
examine their necessity and impact in the
context of the entire appeal and not in
isolation.
(iv) Departure from the above procedure shall
be made only in exceptional circumstances,
and the Appellate Court shall record specific
reasons demonstrating the urgency or
compelling necessity for deciding the
interlocutory application independently.
(v) The endeavour of every first Appellate
Court shall be to avoid piecemeal
adjudication and to ensure comprehensive
disposal of the appeal together with all
connected interlocutory applications so as
to minimize multiplicity of proceedings and
avoid unnecessary invocation of the

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 23.03.2021
passed by the first Appellate Court in R.A.
No.134 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set
aside.
(iii) The first Appellate Court shall hear the
main appeal together with the application
seeking amendment of the written
statement and thereafter pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law.
(iv) In the event the amendment application is
ultimately allowed, defendant No.3 shall be
permitted to adduce limited additional
evidence strictly confined to the amended
pleadings incorporated in the written
statement.

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10462
WP No. 101384 of 2021


CNR: KAHC020161272021


(v) Having regard to the fact that the suit is of
the year 2001 and the appeal is of the year
2008, the first Appellate Court shall make
every endeavour to dispose of the appeal
as expeditiously as possible. The learned
counsel appearing for the parties shall
extend their full cooperation to facilitate
early disposal of the appeal.

Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: GSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7