- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10692 MFA No. 447 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14THDAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.447 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. LATE SIDDAPPA, S/O VENKATARAMAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., LATE LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS PADMA D/O. LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT. RADHA D/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. SMT. LALITHA D/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.44,VINAYAKANAGAR, VIDYAPEETA CIRCLE, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10692 MFA No. 447 of 2023 4TH CROSS,BANGALORE – 560050 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.351,J P NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BANGALORE – 560078. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (E) BANGALORE – 560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. VENKATESHA ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SACHIN B.S ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(d) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.06.08.2022 PASSED IN MISC.NO.202/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, (CCH-38), DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/O.9 RULE 13 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10692 MFA No. 447 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellants herein are defendants in O.S.No.6185/2010 have suffered ex-parte decree dated 26.02.2013 passed on the file of XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bengaluru City, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) have filed Misc.Petition No.202/2013 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC praying to restoration of the suit in O.S.No.6185/2010, but the said Misc. Petition No.202/2013 was dismissed on 06.08.2022. Thus, the defendants have filed the present appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10692 MFA No. 447 of 2023 4. Respondent No.1 herein has filed suit in O.S.No.6185/2010 for declaration and permanent injunction against the father of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. The father of defendant No.1, namely Siddappa S/o Venkataramaiah has not received suit summons and he had no knowledge regarding the suit proceedings; therefore, the suit came to be decreed ex- parte against defendant No.1. Defendant No.1/Siddappa died on 09.08.2015 thereafter the plaintiff/respondent No.1came to the house of appellant/defendant No.1 herein then came to know that the ex-parte decree had been passed. 5. The suit is filed for declaration and for permanent injunction, but there is rival claim regarding ownership of the property. It is contended by the appellant/defendant No.1 that there was no proper service of summons on defendant No.1, who was alive at that point of time and thereafter defendant No.1 died then the appellants herein came to know that the said ex-parte - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10692 MFA No. 447 of 2023 decree had been passed. Therefore, when the said suit is filed for declaration regarding rival claim between the parties, then the judgment and decree shall not be one sided. The Trial Court ought to have allowed the Misc. Petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, but dismissed it, which curtails the right of the appellants, who are the children of defendant No.1/Siddappa. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion to give one more chance to the appellants to contest the suit. 6. Though by allowing this appeal respondent No.1/plaintiff once again constrained to contest the suit but that is inevitable since the claim of the appellants is at stake. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed with cost of Rs.15,000/- payable by the LR.s of defendant No.1 (appellants herein) to the plaintiff/respondent No.1. 7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10692 MFA No. 447 of 2023 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.15,000/- payable by the appellants herein to the plaintiff/respondent No.1. ii. The order dated 06.08.2022 passed in Misc. Petition No.202/2013 by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-38) is hereby set aside. iii. The suit in O.S.No.6185/2010 is restored on its board. iv. The appellants herein are permitted to file written statement and to contest the suit. v. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of one and half year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. vi. Both parties shall cooperate with the trial court for early disposal of suit without seeking unnecessary adjournments without genuine reasons. If the trial court finds that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10692 MFA No. 447 of 2023 parties are seeking unnecessary adjournments, then the trial court may impose costs on the parties who seek unnecessary adjournments. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28