IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.295/2025 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

MR. NARINDER KHARBANDA S/O LATE NAND KISHORE KHARBANDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT 1ST FLOOR BEARING CORPORATION NO.234 Digitally signed by BINNA MANGALA LAYOUT ARSHIFA BAHAR

7TH CROSS CMH ROAD KHANAM INDIRANAGAR I STAGE Location: HIGH BENGALURU 560038.

COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SR. ADV., FOR SMT. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. STERLING EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR RAKESH KHARBANDA II FLOOR, 2180/62 AERENS PLAZA, GURUDWARA ROAD KAROL BAUGH, CENTRAL DELHI NEW DELHI-110005.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH SHENDGE, ADV.,)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE 74^TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CH-75) IN O.S.NO.26474/2023. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 74^TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CH-75) (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

18.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2025 passed in O.S.No.26474/2023 by the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (for short 'the Trial Court').

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the plaintiff has filed a suit seeking relief of declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, direction to the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint property to the plaintiff, direct the defendants to pay mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per day towards damages along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of realization along with costs of the suit. The appellant filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and sought for dismissal of suit. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.II under Order XII Rule 6(1) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking for decreeing the suit as per the admission made in the written statement by the defendant. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, allowed I.A.No.II filed by the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. Being aggrieved, the defendant is in appeal.

4. Sri. Suresh S Lokre, learned Senior counsel appearing for Smt. Nidhi M Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff and decreeing the suit. It is submitted that the Trial Court has only relied on Paragraph 20 of the written statement and decreed the suit, which is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that even on plain reading of Paragraph 20 of the written statement, it is clear that the defendant has nowhere admitted the case of the plaintiff. Hence, decreeing the suit on the admission in the written statement without reading the contentions in the written statement in its proper perspective by the Trial court has resulted in passing of the erroneous order. It is also submitted that the defendant in the written statement has denied the case of the plaintiff in its entirety. However, the Trial Court solely considering the averments at Paragraph 20 of the written statement has erroneously decreed the suit, which is impermissible in law.

5. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in