Back
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA
G. N. R. Babu @ S. N. Babu – Appellant
Versus
B. C. Muthappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, who is the original first defendant, has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 22nd March 2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in an appeal being R.F.A.No.494 of 2016 preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).
3. The first respondent who is the original plaintiff, filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bangalore (now Bengaluru) for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the property subject matter of the suit comprising of Site No.28 at BTM Layout, Bangalore. Site No.28, according to the first respondent, consisted of lands bearing survey nos.56, 57 and 60 of Bilkenahalli Village and survey nos.61, 71 and 72 of N.S. Palya Village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. Site No.28 is hereinafter referred as “the suit property”. Apart from claiming a declaration of ownership, the first respondent contended that a structure erected by the appellant on the suit property was illegal and therefore, a decree was sought for removal of the structure. The other two respondents in this appeal were the second and third defendants respectively. The learned Judge of the City
Where there has been appeal against decree passed ex-parte and appeal has been disposed of on any ground other than withdrawal, application for setting aside ex-parte decree will not lie.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proper service of summons and the defendant's right to set aside an ex-parte decree by presenting a satisfactory reason in cour....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellate court to consider applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC and the relevance of the d....
An appeal against an ex parte decree remains maintainable regardless of the dismissal of an application to set it aside under Order 9, Rule 13.
The plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength, and in this case, the appellant failed to establish his possession of the suit property, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
