IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 35974 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI R JAGADISH

S/O LATE H.V RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

R/A HOSAHALLI GOLLARAPALYA,

YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH

TALUK- 560022.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHAHNAWAZ M. MAMADAPUR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

LATE R SRINIVASA

S/O LATE H.V RANGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

R/A NO.66, H.V.R LAYOUT,

MAGADI ROAD,

Digitally signed HOUSING BOARD,

by BANGALORE- 560079

GAVRIBIDANUR

SUBRAMANYA SINCE DEAD,

GUPTA REPRESENTED BY THEIR LRS

SREENATH

Location: HIGH

COURT OF 1. SMT. SATHYA KUMARI

KARNATAKA

W/O LATE R. SRINIVASA,

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

R/A HOUSE NO.117, 1ST CROSS,

3RD MAIN HVR LAYOUT,

HOUSING BOARD,

MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 079

…RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH AND/OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.9.2025 IN (ANNEXURE-M) PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN O.S.NO.82/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, RAMANAGAR., AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

The present petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed on IA.No.5 in O.S.No.82/2024.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.82/2024 filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the original suit proceedings, an application came to be filed to implead the proposed respondent No.2 who is defendant No.2 filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, namely Smt. Satya Kumari. The notice on the said application was served to the said applicant, who was sought to be impleaded as defendant No.2. Thereafter, the application came to be allowed, permitting the impleadment of defendant No.2 as party in the suit proceedings. Accordingly, the plaintiff had arrayed defendant No.2 as a party to the suit proceedings, carried out the amendment and thereafter the trial Court ordered the issuance of notice to the defendant No.2 who is the respondent herein.

3. Since the defendant No.2 had not accepted regular service of notice and avoided the same, the plaintiff was compelled to file an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC by way of IA No. 5 seeking leave of the Court to take out notice by way of substitute service through newspaper publication in the Vijayavani Daily newspaper. Accordingly, the said publication was taken out against defendant No.2. The draft of the application was accepted by the Court and the publication was also ordered to be taken out by way of newspaper publication in the Vijayavani Kannada Daily newspaper and the date was fixed for publication of the notice on or before 08.09.2025 and the matter was to be called on 23.09.2025. The publication was taken out well within time. Thereafter the matter was listed before the Court for the appearance of defendant No.2 on 23.09.2025. When the matter was called on 23.09.2025, the trial Court passed the following order.

"Defendant No.1 counsel is present and reported the death of defendant No.1.

Plaintiff counsel is present and filed memo along with paper publication dated 25.08.2025 "Vijayavani kannada daily news paper. For appearance of defendant No.2.

For steps by 15.12.2025."

4. In the said order, instead of accepting the notice to be sufficient, the trial Court ordered for appearance of the defendant No.2. This order is questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that once the newspaper publication is taken out under Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 of CPC and the appearance date is published in the said newspaper, if no representation is made by the said defendant, then the notice would have to be held sufficient.

5. It is contended that pursuant to the publication of the newspaper, the defendant No. 2