- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11390 CRP No. 208 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 208 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI.T.VENKOBA RAO, S/O. LATE THIMMOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.3208/25, 6TH CROSS, GAYATHRI NAGAR 'C' BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.K.MUNISHANKAR, S/O LATE KESHAVA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.76, 5TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN SETTY HALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MUTT, KAMMAGONDAHALLI,JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU - 560 015. 2. SRI. K. KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. LATE KESHAVA MURTHY, AGED BOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT SRI LAKSHMI VILLAS, COCONUT GARDEN, SETTY HALLI MAIN ROAD, MALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 015. Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11390 CRP No. 208 of 2021 3. SMT. DEVIKA W/O. K. C. ASHOK, AGED BOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALURU - 560 015. 4. SMT. SHARADAMMA, W/O. LATE H. V. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT H. V. R. EXTENSION, OPPOSITE TO CHECK POST, MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.G. MUNISWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED; V/O. DATED 26.11.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2021 PASSED IN MISC.No.343/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, ALLOWING THE PETITION AND RESTORING THE SUIT IN OS.No.1340/2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1340/2016 is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned order passed in Misc.No.343/2020 dated 22.04.2021 whereby the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11390 CRP No. 208 of 2021 miscellaneous petition has been allowed and the suit is restored by recalling the ex-parte order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the first respondent, defendant No.1 who is the contesting defendant in the matter was served with a notice, he did not enter appearance and therefore, the trial Court placed defendant No.1 ex-parte. Thereafter defendant No.1 filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC with a request to set aside the ex-parte order dated 21.03.2016. The said application was filed on the ground that defendant No.1 was unwell and in order to support such contention he had produced before the Court a discharge summary dated 12.05.2016 issued by Ayur Palana, Ayurveda Hospital, Palakkad, Kerala and a medical certificate dated 21.11.2016 issued by the very same hospital which shows that defendant No.1 was an inpatient in the Hospital between 27.04.2016 to 12.05.2016. Nevertheless the said application was dismissed by order dated 16.02.2017. Defendant No.1 filed WP.No.16027/2017 before this Court questioning the said order dated 16.02.2017. However, since defendant No.1 did not prosecute the matter before this Court, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11390 CRP No. 208 of 2021 the writ petition was dismissed on 23.10.2018, for non compliance of office objections and for non-prosecution. 3. Learned counsel submits that in the miscellaneous petition defendant No.1 produced the same documents which were produced before the trial Court and sought for setting aside the ex-parte judgement. Learned counsel submits that once the competent Court had considered the very same documents and rejected the request made by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order, it is impermissible to accept the same documents and allow the miscellaneous petition. It is further submitted that even before this Court, although the first respondent is represented by learned counsel, there has been no representation. Even on the previous occasion, this court has noticed the fact that the learned counsel for the first respondent has not been appearing before this Court. Learned counsel therefore submits that the conduct of the first respondent should be noticed by this Court and every time he approaches the Court, whether it is the trial Court or this Court, there has been no representation and consequently, all such applications and petitions have been rejected both at the hands of the trial Court and at the hands of this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11390 CRP No. 208 of 2021 4. Having regard to the facts narrated herein above and in view of the fact that the first respondent is not represented before this Court, it clearly shows that the first respondent has no interest in the matter. Only the for the sake of formally securing an order to recall the ex-parte judgement, the first respondent filed the petition before the trial Court and the same has been allowed, although on the same set of documents which formed the basis for rejection of the application filed by the defendant earlier. In view of such circumstances, this Court is constrained to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2021 in Misc.No.343/2020. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DS CT:TSM