- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1272/2021 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. P.R. VIJAYA W/O SRI. V.H. BHAT AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.97, 10TH-D-CROSS WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE 560086. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV.,) AND: 1. M/S. RAGHAVENDRA DEVELOPERS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.30/1 BEHIND SRINIVASA KALYANA MANTAPA MATHIKERE, BANGALORE 560054 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. SAMAMALLA REDDY. 2. PUTTAMMA W/O NAGARAJAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT. NO.205, 2ND CROSS MARIYAPPANAPALYA MASEEDI BLOCK, SREERAMPURAM BANGALORE-560021. 3. SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE CHIKKAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 R/AT NO. 205, II CROSS MARIYAPPANAPALYA, MASEEDI BLOCK SREERAMPURAM, BENGALURU 560021. 4. SRI. V. HARIDAR BHAT S/O K.V. BHAT AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RA/T NO.97, 10TH-D-CROSS WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE 560086. …RESPONDENTS (V/O/DTD:19.12.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S R2, R3, & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(d) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2020 PASSED IN MISC NO.790/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.3957/2012 has filed this appeal who is the petitioner in Misc. No.790/2018, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2020 in Misc.No.790/2018 passed by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, thereby Misc. Petition filed under Order - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed. 2. Respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.3957/2012 for relief of declaration to declare that Joint Development Agreement (for short 'JDA') dated 13.10.2010 is binding on defendant Nos.4 to 6 and also prayed for decree directing defendant Nos.4 to 6 to handover vacant possession of the schedule property as per JDA and also direct defendant Nos.4 to 6 to execute General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.1 and accordingly, the Trial Court has decreed the suit by granting reliefs claimed by respondent No.1 in the suit. 3. The appellant herein was defendant No.4 in O.S.No.3957/2012. It is contended that defendant No.4 who is the petitioner in Misc.No.790/2018 was not served with notice in the suit. Respondent No.1 being the plaintiff in the suit has taken the notice to residence No.38, I floor, II main, Mahalakshmi layout, Bangalore, in which address the appellant was originally residing before purchasing the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 property. After purchasing the property, the appellant started to reside at No.97, 10th 'D' Cross, West of Chord Road, Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru-86. He would contend that to this address, notice was not taken. In the impugned order, it is observed by the Trial Court that the appellant was taken notice at Plot No.97, 10th Cross, West of Chord Road, Basaweshwarnagar, Bengaluru. Therefore, he contends that defendant No.4 was not served with notice. Therefore, the appellant who was defendant No.4 in the suit was wrongly placed exparte. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no occasion for the appellant to participate in the suit proceedings in O.S.No.3957/2012. Therefore, he contended that as per Order V Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when there are multiple defendants, service of the summons must be made on each of them, unless otherwise prescribed. He would submit that just because defendant No.5/respondent No.4 is her husband and served notice and participated in the proceedings that cannot be amounting to effective service on the appellant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 in the suit proceedings. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3957/2012, is behind the back of the appellant and in this regard, for setting aside the judgment, Misc.No.790/2018 is filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure but has been dismissed. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. All the respondents have received notice from this Court in the appeal but have remained unrepresented. 5. In O.S.No.3957/2012, the appellant was defendant No.4 in the cause-title of the said judgment. It is mentioned that defendant No.4 is placed as exparte along with other defendants except defendant No.5. 6. The Trial Court while considering Misc. Petition No.790/2018, observed that defendant No.5 is husband of defendant No.4 (appellant herein). Therefore, when defendant No.5 appeared through his counsel and contested the suit, it is observed by the Trial Court that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 what prevented defendant No.4 to appear and to contest the suit has not been explained. Consequently, it is clearly revealed that the appellant herein who was defendant No.4 in the suit was not properly served with notice. Though defendant Nos.4 and 5 are residing in the same address and defendant No.5 contested the suit that does not mean that defendant No.4 (appellant herein) was properly served with notice. 7. Order V Rule 11 of CPC stipulates as follows: “11. Service on several defendants. – Save as otherwise prescribed, where there are more defendants than one, service of the summons shall be made on each defendant.” 8. Therefore, where there are several defendants, then the suit summons shall be served on each of the defendants. Though some of the defendants may be residing in one roof in the same address that cannot be dispensed with service of summons to other defendants. If one of the defendants has received summons and has told regarding suit proceedings to other defendants, who is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 also residing in the same address that cannot be construed as other defendants have been served summons. 9. Order V Rule 11 of CPC mandates service of summons on each defendant in the suit. Merely because one defendant received summons is not a sufficient ground to dispense with the notice for the other defendants or it cannot be held that the other defendants were having knowledge regarding suit proceedings, hence, service of summons is sufficient. 10. Admittedly, from the discussion made in the Misc. Petition No.790/2018, the Trial Court observed that summons to defendant No.4 was served, but the only observation of the Trial Court is that since defendant No.5 has received summons and contested the suit. Therefore, held that defendant No.4 was also having knowledge regarding the suit proceedings, but it is opposite to mandate of law as per Order V Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, as per Order V Rule 11 of CPC, it is mandatory to serve summons to all the defendants or his/her/agent to receive - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 summons. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court in Misc. Petition No.790/2018 is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2017 in O.S.No.3957/2012 passed by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court to consider the O.S.No.3957/2012 afresh in accordance with law. 11. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order with directions. ORDER i. The appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellant to respondent No.1. ii. The order dated 10.09.2020 passed in Misc. Petition No.790/2018 on the file of V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii. The judgment and decree dated 20.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.3957/2012 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 iv. The suit in O.S.No.3957/2012 is restored on its board. v. Since the plaintiff and defendant No.5 have already adduced their evidence both oral and documentary before the Trial Court and the same is ordered as kept intact. vi. Liberty is reserved only to the appellant herein (defendant No.4 in the suit) shall give evidence in examination-in-chief and cooperate for her cross-examination by the counsel for the other defendants. vii. The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the appellant in all respects shall hear the matter and dispose of the suit in accordance with law by considering the evidence already led in the suit. viii. The Trial Court shall issue notice to plaintiff and other defendants. ix. There is no necessity to receive evidence from the plaintiff and defendant No.5 as they have already adduced evidence both oral and documentary. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10548 MFA No. 1272 of 2021 x. After receiving evidence from defendant No.5 in the suit shall consider the suit afresh by making use of the evidence adduced already in the suit and decide the suit. xi. Liberty is reserved to defendant No.4 (appellant) to file written statement and also to lead evidence. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE GVP Para: 1 to 5 SRA Para: 6 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33