Navin Sinha JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These appeals are filed by the Plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 02.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal Nos. 158 and 159 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellant herein.
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Even the issue arising in these appeals is a short one. It would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.
3. The Appellant is Plaintiff in O.S. No. 6640/1996 and Defendant in O.S. No. 2150 of 1992 whereas the Respondents are Defendants in O.S. No. 6640/1996 and Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2150 of 1992 in the suits out of which these appeals arise.
4. The Appellant filed a suit being O.S. No. 6640/1996 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore against the Respondents for a declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the land described in detail in the plaint (hereinafter referred to as "suit land") whereas original Respondent No. 1 also filed a cross suit being O.S. No. 2150 of 1992 against the Appellant in relation to the suit land.
5. Both the suits were clubbed together for their disposal because both were between the same parties and pertained to same subject matter.
6. Parties contested the suits and adduced evidence. The Trial Court, by common judgment/decree dated 04.12.2004 dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant, i.e., O.S. No. 6640/1996 and decreed the suit filed by Respondent No. 1, i.e., O.S. No. 2150/1992.
7. The Plaintiff in O.S. 6640/1996 felt aggrieved and filed two first appeals Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") before the High Court of Karnataka. By impugned judgment/decree, the Single Judge dismissed both the first appeals and affirmed the judgment/decree of the Trial Court, which has given rise to filing of the present appeals by special leave by the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 6640/1996 in this Court.
8. Heard Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Rajesh Mahale, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the High Court for deciding both the first appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law.
10. The need to remand the case to ........