B.R. RAVIKUMAR Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) The order challenged before this Court is remanding the matter in R.A.No.75/2019 by allowing the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and the same is allowed on cost of Rs.2,000.00. While allowing the application, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.890/2012 and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal with a direction to the Trial Court to accord an opportunity to the plaintiff to carryout amendment of plaint by including the house property and defendants to file written statement or additional written statement, if any and to dispose the suit by giving opportunities to both parties to adduce evidence and date is also fixed for appearance without expecting any notice and also directed for early disposal of the suit.

(3.) The counsel appearing for the appellants in this second appeal would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court committed an error in allowing the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The counsel would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court did not peruse the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and committed an error and the First Appellate Court ought not to have remanded the matter. The counsel would vehemently contend that even the First Appellate Court itself would have given an opportunity to both the parties, record evidence and would have sent the matter to the Trial Court to record the evidence and give finding on that keeping the matter pending before the First Appellate Court and the same has not been done. Hence this Court has to interfere with the order of the Trial Court.