- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10694 MFA No. 904 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. 904 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. VENKATARAMAPPA @ VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O LATE MUNISWAMY @ MUNISHAMI, R/AT DEVALAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563138. 2. SRI. D.V. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI. M. VENKATARAMAPPA @ VENKATARAVANAPPA PERMANENT ADDRESS AT DEVALAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST RONUR HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563138. PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 20, 2ND FLOOR,20TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, HEBBAL, BANGALORE – 560024. 3. SRI. D.V. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O SRI M VENKATARAMAPPA @ VENKATARAVANAPPA PERMANENT ADDRESS AT DEVALAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST RONUR HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563138 Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10694 MFA No. 904 of 2023 AT NO 773 OPP. SHANKARNAG BUS STOP, KAMALANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560079. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VEDHU KUMAR Y.S,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M. MUNINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE MUNISWAMY @ MUNISHAMI R/AT NO 15, GURU KRUPA “PRASANNA NILAYA 1ST FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ACHALA SADGURU SEVASHRAMA SANJAYNAGAR WARD NO 100 BANGALORE – 560094. 2. SRI. UMESH. M AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O M MUNINARAYAPPA R/ATNO OLD 25/26, NEW NO 21/22 1ST FLOOR 13TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR NEAR DEVI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD NEAR HEBBAL RING ROAD BANGALORE - 560094. 3. SRI. M PRASANNA @ GURUPRASAD AGED ABOUT42 YEARS S/O LATE MUNINARYAPPA R/AT NO 15, GURU KRUPA “PRASANNA NILAYA 1ST FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, ACHALA SADGURU SEVASHRAMA SANJAYNAGAR WARD NO 100 BANGALORE – 560094. 4. SMT.M. SAROJA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10694 MFA No. 904 of 2023 D/O M. MUNINARAYAPPA W/O SRINIVASAREDDY R/ATNO 08, MATHRUSRI NILAYA 2ND CROSS AECSI STAGE, CIL (A) RMV SANJAYNAGAR BENGALURU - 560094. 5. SMT V. SAROJA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O M VENKATARAMAPPA W/O N NAGARAJU NO 12 1ST MAIN ROAD KAMALANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHUNATH FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. NAGARAJA.S.M FOR R5) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.18.11.2022 PASSED IN MISC. NO.622/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH NO.19), DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/O.9 RULE 9 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10694 MFA No. 904 of 2023 2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.654/2021 have filed suit for partition and separate possession, but the said suit was dismissed for non- prosecution on the ground that appellants/plaintiffs have not cooperated with the Court for leading evidence and for disposal hence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit for non- prosecution on 25.03.2022. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed Misc.Petition.No.622/2022 under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for recalling the order of dismissal of suit for non-prosecution, but said Misc.Petition.No.622/2022 was dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiffs are in appeal before this Court. 5. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession and the Trial Court has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10694 MFA No. 904 of 2023 dismissed the suit for non-prosecution on the reason that the plaintiffs have not led after framing issues and were dragging on the case. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that plaintiff No.2 in the suit is an advocate and he knew very well regarding the suit proceedings, but could not prosecute the suit and that there is no merit in the suit. Further submitted that just to drag on the case and to make harass the respondents, the plaintiffs have not led evidence. Therefore, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit for non-prosecution, which needs no interference. 6. Though learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that one more chance is to be given to the appellants/plaintiffs to prosecute the case. 7. The Court is of the opinion that whatever may be the reasons for the plaintiffs’ for dormant over the suit proceedings, but when the plaintiffs have filed the suit for agitating their rights, the Court is of the opinion to give - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10694 MFA No. 904 of 2023 one more chance to the appellants/plaintiffs to prosecute the appeal with a direction not to drag on the case for interregnum period. Therefore, the suit is liable to be restored from the stage of leading evidence by the plaintiffs by imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants. It is directed that the plaintiffs shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments without reasons and shall cooperate with the Court for early disposal. With these observations I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellants/plaintiffs to the defendants. ii. The order dated 18.12.2022 passed in Misc.No.622/2022 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-19) as well as the order dated 25.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.654/2021 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing the suit for non-prosecution, are hereby set aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10694 MFA No. 904 of 2023 iii. The suit in O.S.No.654/2021 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is restored on its board for fresh consideration in accordance with law from the stage of leading evidence by the plaintiffs. iv. The appellants/plaintiffs shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments without reasons, if the Court feels that the plaintiffs are seeking unnecessary adjournments, then the Trial Court is at liberty to impose costs on the plaintiffs for seeking unnecessary adjournments. v. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15.04.2025 without expecting notice from the Trial Court. vi. The Trial Court shall make every endeavor to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of one and half year. vii. Since plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are senior citizens,the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of one and half year from 15.04.2025. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29