SHRISHAIL, Vs. KALLAPPA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Miscellaneous Second Appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree passed on 13.07.2012 by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court -I, Chikodi in Regular Appeals No.19/2012 and 33/2012. Appellant in both these cases Sri. Shrishail Mallappa Khinnavar is the 1st respondent in R.A.No.19/2012 and appellant in R.A.No.33/2012.

(2.) BOTH these appeals bearing R.A.Nos. 19/2012 and 33/2012 had arisen out of the judgment passed in final decree proceedings bearing FDP No.7/2010 dated 12.12.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi. The 1st respondent herein - Kallappa Mallappa Khinnavar was the petitioner in the said case. His brother i.e., the appellant herein - Shrishail Mallappa Khinnavar was the 1st respondent and Sadashiv Ghatagayya Hiremath - 2nd respondent herein was respondent No.2 in R.A.Nos. 19/2012 and 33/2012. The said FDP No.7/2010 had arisen out of the preliminary decree passed in original suit No.27/2010 dated 13.11.2009.

(3.) AN order has been passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court -I, Chikodi, allowing both the appeals in R.A.Nos. 9/2012 and 33/2012 and thereby judgment and decree passed in FDP No.7/2012 dated 12.12.2011 has been set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to restore FDP No.7/2010 and thereafter to appoint either the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD or the City Surveyor as the Court Commissioner and to get a report from him in regard to valuation of the house property and also to give an opportunity to the parties to file objections and to adduce evidence, if necessary, and further direction is passed by allotting 1/2 share equally to Kallappa and Shrishail i.e., the appellant herein and his brother in the property bearing TMC No.483/A comprising CTS Nos.1903, 1904, 1905 and TMC No.854/673, subject to adjustment of equities. Parties have been directed to appear before the FDP Court on 13.08.2012 without waiting for notice. It is this order dated 13.07.2012, which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo filed in MSA Nos. 651/2012 and 652/2012.