- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14242 RFA No. 426 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 426 OF 2025 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PRAKASH S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SRI. SHIVA KUMAR S/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 3. KUM. NANDINI D/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT RANGANATHA LAYOUT HAROHALLI VLLAGE AND HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST.-562 112. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NANJUNDARADHYA .B.G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BEBAMMA W/O JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT SINDHYANAGARA HAROHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14242 RFA No. 426 of 2025 KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST.-562 112. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMAMURTHY .H.S, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.06.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.181/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendants in O.S.No.181/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.06.2023, whereby the suit filed by the respondent - plaintiff against the defendants for specific performance and other relief in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent - plaintiff against the appellants - defendants. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14242 RFA No. 426 of 2025 3. I.A.No.1/2025 is filed for condonation of delay of 520 days in filing the appeal. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application - I.A.No.1/2025, it is contended that the impugned judgment and decree was an exparte judgment and decree in as much as the appellants could not file written statement and contest the suit due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed and the delay of 520 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both parties, the same is taken for final disposal. 6. Perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for specific performance of sale agreement dated 15.02.2016 alleged to have been executed by Rathnamma and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. Though a learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the appellants before the Trial Court, the appellants did not file written statement nor contest the suit. The respondent - plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and two - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14242 RFA No. 426 of 2025 witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and documentary evidence as Exs.P.1 to 13 were marked on behalf of the respondent - plaintiff. As stated supra, the appellants - defendants neither cross-examined the plaintiff and her witnesses nor did they adduce any oral and documentary evidence. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the respondent - plaintiff against the appellants - defendants, who are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants - defendants submits that though they had engaged service of the learned counsel, due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, they could not contact their advocate and they failed to give necessary instructions to file written statement and contest the suit, which culminated in the impugned judgment and decree. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is provided by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, the appellants - defendants would file the written statement and contest the suit, which can be disposed of in accordance with law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14242 RFA No. 426 of 2025 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent - plaintiff, on instructions, submits that they have no objection for the impugned judgment and decree to be set-aside and matter may be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh within the stipulated time frame in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by both sides, I deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity in favour of the appellants and consequently, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.06.2023 passed in O.S.No.181/2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, is hereby set aside. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14242 RFA No. 426 of 2025 (iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) The appellants and respondent shall appear before the Trial Court without awaiting any further notice on 28.04.2025. The appellants shall file their written statement, objections etc., without seeking any adjournment on 28.04.2025. (v) Immediately upon the appellants - defendants filing the written statement, the Trial Court shall frame issues and dispose of the suit within a period of six months from 28.04.2025. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to adduce evidence/further evidence in support of their respective claims as well as cross-examination of the opposite party and their witnesses. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. (vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14242 RFA No. 426 of 2025 (viii) Registry of this Court is directed to refund the entire Court Fee paid on the Memorandum of Appeal back to the appellants - defendants forthwith without any further delay. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38