C. RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O CHANNEGOWDA Vs. KSRTC REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER SRI B.P. CHANDRA SHETTY BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT KIMCO BUILDING, DEEPANJALI NAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026 AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (LAND RECORD) DEPARTMENT OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON question of law and that of fact arise for decision making. Hence with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeals are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order. Appellant in MSA No. 197/11 instituted O.S. No. 11/93 for declaration over the report filed in O.S.No. 134/91 and permanent injunction in respect of a certain immovable property arraigning the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation as the 1st defendant and the Asst. Director of Land Records. Department of Survey Settlement, as the 2nd defendant. The suit when allowed by a judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ramanagaram, the 1st defendant - KSRTC filed R.A.No.24/2003 which when allowed by judgment and decree dt. 10/2/2005 of the Add). Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ramanagaram, was carried in RSA No. 425/05 by the plaintiff. This court, by order dt. 4/10/2010, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Lower Appellate Court and remitted the proceeding to the Lower Appellate Court with a direction to appoint a Court Commissioner to submit a report or the state of affairs i.e., whether the suit property is in fact outside the area covered under the notifications Ex.P13 and P14 or whether it would fall inside the property covered under the said notifications, and whether the suit property would fall within the confines of Sy.No. 19/2 and also permitted the plaintiff and the 1st respondent -KSRTC to file an application under Order XLI Rule 1');">27 CPC, which the Lower Appellate Court was directed to consider.

(2.) THE Lower Appellate Court, on remand, allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 1');">27 filed by the 1st respondent - KSRTC while the appellant's LA, under Order XLI Rule 1');">27 CPC. since not filed before the Lower Appellate Court, was not considered. The said court having noticed that there was a need for a trial, by order dt. 27/7/2011, remanded the proceeding to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, while permitting the 1st respondent -KSRTC to lead evidence and the appellant to cross -examine the Commissioner on his report.

(3.) SRI . Hegde Hudlamane, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that R.P.No.495/11 was filed in RSA No. 425/05 whence by order dt. 28/11/2011, the registry was directed to put up in MSA Nos. 197/11 and 277/11 the appellant's application under Order XLI Rule 1');">27 CPC for consideration by this court.