IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100098 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

SUMANGALA @ BASAMMA W/O. TOTAPPA ANGADI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE -583232 TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI C.S SHETTAR, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

N.DORESWAMY NARESHAN AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KUKANOOR, DIST: KOPPAL NOW AT NO. 23, MAILASANDRA, BENGALURU SOUTH, MALLIKARJUN BENGALURU (URBAN)-560060.

RUDRAYYA KALMATH …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION Date: 2025.09.24 10:41:50 +0530

115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2021 AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELBURGA, IN CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO.03/2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PETITION IN CIVIL MISC.NO.03/2020 FILED BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT YELBURGA BE DISMISSED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner. 2. This is the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga, in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.3 of 2020 dated 18.11.2021 on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, the ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the respondent is the absolute owner of the property in question and he has executed a registered sale agreement dated 18.02.2013. As the respondent failed to heed the request of the petitioner to execute the register sale deed, the petitioner issued legal notice on 14.10.2014 calling upon the respondent to come and execute the registered sale deed. The said notice was unserved. Then the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of contract, in which the notice was not served. Hence paper publication was taken and the same was duly published despite which the respondent remained absent. Hence, the trial Court has recorded the evidence of the petitioner and decreed the suit exparte in favour of this petitioner. Being aggrieved by this exparte judgment and decree, the respondent had filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.3 of 2020 before the Civil Judge, Yelburga, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. The petitioner has filed objections to the main petition and also interlocutory application. The trial Court has recorded statement of witnesses and allowed the interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, and exparte judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and restored the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the admissions of the respondent and has passed the order which is opposed to the correct legal principles. Further, it is stated that it has come on record more particularly in page No.8 of deposition of PW1 that respondent No.8 was present before the Court on 07.08.2015, 23.09.2015 and 28.09.2015, i.e., when the matter was taken up by the trial Court (pending suit). The said admission clearly goes to transpire that the factum of institution of the suit was well within the knowledge of the respondent. Taking note of the same, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the petition. Further, it is submitted that after obtaining the ex-parte j