IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 539 OF 2018 (M)

BETWEEN:

1. ANTHONY J.

S/O. LATE JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.4/20, 1ST CROSS, H.M. ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 084.

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS

1A. MRS. FATHIMA MARY W/O. LATE ANTHON J AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS Digitally signed by R MANJUN ATHA 1B. ANITA ANTHONY Location:

D/O. LATE ANTHONY J HIGH COURT OF AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS KARNATAKA

1C. ANGELA ANTHONY D/O. LATE ANTHONY J AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

1D. SUZANNE KAVITHA D/O. LATE ANTHONY J AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.103, SUNNYSIDE APARTMENT NO.594, 1^ST MAIN ROAD ST. THOMAS TOWN KARIYANAPALYA BANGALORE - 560 084 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KAMALA KUMARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ANTHONY EMANUEL GEORGE S/O. ALEXANDAR MURRAY (LATE)

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. ALOYSIUS SURESH S/O. ALEXANDAR MURRAY (LATE), AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.4, BEHIND LOKESH CHITRA-MANDIRA, JAGADEESH COMPOUND, KANAKADASA LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 084.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADAN GOPAL M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2016 PASSED IN MISC.NO.142/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL.JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-16) BANGALORE DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 13 R/W. SEC. 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Smt. Kamala Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

2. Defendant in S.C. No.721/2013 having suffered the ex parte decree of ejectment, filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in M.C.

No.142/2016 seeking setting aside the ex parte decree.

3. Landlord contested the said petition and evidence was recorded by the parties. During the course of evidence, certified copy of the original proceedings were marked on behalf of the petitioner. Exhibit P13 is the certified copy of the RPAD cover, wherein there is a specific mention by the postal authority that the 'notice has been refused'.

4. So also, in Exhibit P12, the Bailiff of the Court who had visited the petitioner on 15.03.2014 and 20.03.2014 along with the petitioner, made a specific endorsement that the 'petitioner herein refused to receive the notice'.

5. Taking note of the refusal by the Bailiff as well as the RPAD cover, the petitioner was placed ex parte in S.C. No.721/2013 and ex parte decree Of ejectment came to be passed.

6. Learned Trial Judge while considering the request of the petitioner seeking setting aside the ex parte decree, has considered the probative value of the material placed on record in paragraph Nos.14 to 18 as under and rejected the petition seeking setting aside the ex parte decree:

14. The certified copy of summons in SC.721/13 and its report/shara dated 1-8-2013 reveals that on 30-7-13, ameen had been to the address of the petitioner and he came to know that the petitioner was not feeling well and he was not in a position to come out. Therefore, ameen asked the brother of the petitioner and his wife to receive the suit summons, they also refused to receive the summons. Therefore, he affixed the suit summons to the door of the petitioner and obtained signature and reported the same to the court. The notice issued through RPAD was returned with an endorsement "party refused" and returned to sender as could be seen from the shara dated 23-9-2013. The said RPAD was addressed to the petitioner at No.4/20, 1st Cross, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore-84.

15. The report of the court bailiff in Ex.443/14 reveals that on 3-5-2014, possession of the suit schedule premises was handed over to the respondents in the said execution petition and also notice issued to the petitioner was returned with an endorsement "refused".

16. In order to set aside the exparte decree passed in SC.721/13,