IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 469 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O MARIHONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.189/B, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 14TH CROSS, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. T. BHAGYA D/O LATE THOPAIAH W/O YADHUGIRI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.808, 8TH CROSS, Digitally ULLALA UPANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 056.

signed by R MANJUNATHA

2. KRISHNAMURTHY Location:

HIGH COURT S/O LATE THOPAIAH, OF AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, KARNATAKA R/AT NO.608, BEHIND MARAMMA TMEPLE, OPP. TO SHANIMATHMA TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR HOUSE OF DODDANNA, ULLALA UPANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 056

3. SMT. SAVITRI W/O LATE GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO 14, OLD BUS STAND ROAD, 1ST MAIN, ULLALA UPANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 056.

4. G.KIRAN S/O LATE GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 14, OLD BUS STAND ROAD, 1ST MAIN, ULLALA UPANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 056.

5. LAKSHMISHA S/O LATE GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 14, OLD BUS STAND ROAD, 1ST MAIN, ULLALA UPANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 056.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYAPRAKSH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1, R3, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC. 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2019 PASSED IN MIS. APPEAL NO. 31-2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE AND CJM., TUMAKURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2013 PASSED ON IA NO. I IN MIS.P.NO.17/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-III AT TUMKUR REJECTING THE IA NO.I FILED UNDER SEC. ORDER IX RULE 13 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

Heard Sri.Sridhar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner challenging the validity of the order passed by the First Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No.31/2013 dated 17.09.2019 whereby said appeal came to be allowed and consequently thereof, order passed in Misc. Petition No.17/2009 dated 19.04.2013 is set aside and defendant is permitted to contest the suit in O.S.No.725/2008.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. A suit in O.S.No.725/2008 came to be filed by the plaintiff for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell said to have been executed by the defendants. Defendants refused to receive the notice issued through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (hereinafter ‘RPAD’ for short) and thereafter, defendants were placed ex-parte.

3.2. Pursuant to the ex-parte decree, execution petition came to be filed and sale deed got executed through the process of Court.

3.3. In the meantime, defendants filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC' for short) in Misc. Petition 17/2009 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-III, Tumakuru.

3.4. Said petition on contest, came to be dismissed inter alia holding that defendants were watching the proceedings outside the Court.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru in MA No.31/2013.

5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, noted the fact that plaintiff managed to get the summons issued only through RPAD and there was no summons issued through the process of Court and felt that injustice has been caused to the defendants and allowed the appeal on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- and set aside the order dated 19.04.2013 passed in Misc.

Petition No.17/2009.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this court, in this revision.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that a person who is not dil