Appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) are not maintainable before the High Court.

The appellants brought an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against the III Additional Senior City Judge and CJM, Mysuru’s order dated 27 January 2020 dismissing their application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC in O.S. No. 25 of 2017

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable before it, relying on Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, and directed that the matter be transferred to the competent District Court

1. Whether the appeal was maintainable before the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964

2. Whether the appeal and any pending applications should be transferred to the competent District Court for adjudication

The Court relied on Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, as applied in the Division Bench decision in Smt. Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 17588 of 2024 c/w W.A. No. 200260 of 2025, dated 8 July 2026; the judgment records that this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 025075/2026, dated 3 August 2026

The Court applied these authorities as establishing that this appeal was not maintainable before the High Court; it stated no further substantive rule.

Applying Section 19(1) and the cited Narayanamma decision, the Court concluded that it could not adjudicate the appeal in this forum

It therefore directed the Registry to transmit the entire record to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, who could assign the matter to the appellate court with jurisdiction; any pending applications were also to be transferred for consideration in accordance with law.

The Court expressly left the merits and the parties’ contentions open.

The existing interim order was to continue until the District Court disposed of the application; no opinion was expressed on the merits.