SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 438630

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V SRISHANANDA, J
SRI NAVEEN C – Appellant
Versus
SMT JAYA MARY NAVEENA – Respondent
CRP 577/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 577 OF 2025 (M)

BETWEEN:

SRI NAVEEN C

S/O. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

RESIDING AT No.173,

OLD POLICE STATION ROAD,

NEAR VASAVI MAHAL, K.R.PURAM,

BANGALORE - 560 036

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SATISH K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT JAYA MARY NAVEENA

W/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

Digitally

2. MISS SNEHA

signed by

MALATESH D/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH,

K C AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

Location:

HIGH 3. MISS PREETHI

COURT OF

D/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH,

KARNATAKA

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE

RESIDING AT NO.117, T.C. PALYA,

K.R.PURAM,

BENGALURU -560 036

4. MR. ARUN KUMAR,

S/O DEENA DAYA PILLAY,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C. PALYA, 2ND CROSS, NEAR ST. ANTHONY CHURCH, BANGALORE- 560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRISH N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;

R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2025 PASSED IN MISC.NO.24/2017 ON THE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-02) BENGALURU, CITY, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE

13 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

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 Satish K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Girish N., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed in Miscellaneous No.24/2017, dated 24.06.2025 whereby ex parte decree passed against the respondent stood set aside on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- and suit in O.S.No.224/2015 is restored to its original stage.

3. Sri Sathish K, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that after the death of the original vendor, a legal notice came to be issued by the petitioner to all the respondents who are the legal representatives of the original vendor namely, Jnanaprakash. Despite the service of legal notice, there was no compliance which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for specific enforcement of an agreement to sell entered into by Jnanaprakash in O.S.No.224/2015.

4. He would further contend that despite due service of summons in the said suit, the defendants did not appear before the Court. As such, the suit was decided ex parte. But, on false grounds defendants filed miscellaneous petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which has been allowed by the learned trial Judge in a casual manner by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- resulting in impairing the rights of petitioner and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition.

5. Per contra, Sri Girish N., learned counsel representing the respondents who are the legal representatives of Jnanaprakash, support the impugned order.

6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

7. On such perusal of the material on record, this Court finds some force in the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that the respondents were aware of the intended action in view of the fact that the plaintiff had issued legal notice. Further, despite the service of legal notice there was no reply nor compliance which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell in O.S.No.224/2015.

8. Suit summons is also served and the respondents did not appear before the Court for the reasons best known to them. But after the suit came to be decreed ex parte, they filed the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure in Miscellaneous Case No.24/2017.

9. Learned trial Judge recorded the evidence of the parties and after considering the rival contentions, he exercised his discretionary power under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the ex parte decree on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.

10. This Court is of the considered opinion that every sui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top