NINGAPPA Vs. JAGADISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the parties, it is taken up for final hearing. Appellant is the only plaintiff in an original suit bearing O.S.No.79/2010, which was pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar. Respondents herein were the defendants in the said suit.

(2.) SUIT had been filed for the relief of declaration to the effect that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property and that the decree in O.S.No.71/2009 does not bind him. The said suit came to be decreed vide considered judgment dated 09.08.2012. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants that is the respondents herein chose to file an appeal in R.A.No.50/2012 under Section 96 of CPC, challenging the same on various grounds. Ultimately the First Appellate Court has passed an order on 14.12.2012 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and has remitted the matter to the trial Court to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence and also to frame an issue in regard to maintainability of the suit in the light of earlier suit in O.S.No.71/2009 being decreed. It is this judgment and decree, which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo filed under Order 40 Rule 10(u) of CPC by the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order.

(3.) ON hearing the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed: