- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18907 CRP No. 23 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 23 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. B.SATYAMURTHY, S/O BHUPALAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, M/S. MAHADEVAGIRI PLANTATION PVT. LTD., TANIGEBYLU VILAGE, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT, R/O 349, 10TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, 3RD PHASE, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.SATHYARTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KOLANDE, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O CHADIA GOUNDER, COOLI WORK. 2. SMT. UNNAMALIA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O LATE VELAYUDH, COOLIE WORK. 3. SRI. MANIYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O SANNA ARMUGA, COOLI WORK. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18907 CRP No. 23 of 2020 4. SMT. MANIKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O DHANAPAL, COOLIE WORK. 5. SRI. JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O MUDLAPPA, COOLI WORK. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING IN SY.NO.41, 43 AND 44 OF MANCHETEVARU VILLAGE, KALLSHED TANIGABYLU POST, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK – 577 228. 6. THE SECRETARY, TIGADA GRAMA PANCHAYATI, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK – 577 228. 7. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI SESHU V., HCGP FOR R7; NOTICE TO R1 TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 14.01.2020) THE CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.06.2019 PASSED IN MISC APPEAL NO.8/018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18907 CRP No. 23 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is the plaintiff, is now at the doors of this court in the subject petition calling in question the orders passed by the First Appellate Court dated 15.06.2019 rejecting Miscellaneous Appeal No.8/2018 whereby, the order passed on 27.07.2018 in Civil Miscellaneous No.5/2017 by the Trial Court comes to be affirmed. 2. Heard Sri.Sathyarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Seshu V, learned HCGP for respondent No.7 and Sri.Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: (a) The petitioner is said to be the owner of the suit schedule lands having purchased it on 28.03.2001. The suit schedule property is said to have been purchased in an auction conducted by Vishweshwaraiah Iron and Steel Plant, Bhadravati. The plaintiff-petitioner makes an application to the Assistant Director of Land Records, Tarikere, to conduct measurement of the schedule property and fix the hudbusth in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18907 CRP No. 23 of 2020 respect of the said property. When the petitioner then comes to know that certain people unauthorisedly were squatting in the property of the petitioner, had therefore filed a suit in O.S.No.45/2005 seeking declaration, possession, permanent injunction against the defendants. The petitioner did not contest the suit in its true sense. It comes to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.09.2017. The petitioner then files an application in Miscellaneous Application in Civil Miscellaneous No.5/2017 seeking restoration of the suit in O.S.No.45/2005 which also comes to be dismissed. (b) The petitioner then prefers an appeal before the First Appellate Court only to get it dismissed. These orders are impugned in the subject petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this court through the orders passed by both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court would seek to contend that they are premised on wrong assumptions that the petitioner has not led evidence despite passage of 12 years from the date of institution of the suit which is again carried over to the order in the First Appellate Court. He would contend that evidence was led by way of affidavit that was placed before the concerned court. The said affidavit is also appended - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18907 CRP No. 23 of 2020 to the petition. The learned counsel would further contend that all the respondents who were squatting in the property of the petitioner at Chikkamagaluru, did not receive the notice and it became a herculean task to serve them and by time, service of notice could get affected, the court has dismissed the case for its non-prosecution on owing to the alleged fact that the petitioner had not led his evidence. He would seek an opportunity as right to property would be taken away if the orders of the concerned courts would be affirmed. (c) Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent-panchayat and the State would submit that they would have no objection to consider the case on its merit as the private respondents who were all held expert, have never bothered to appear before the court after receipt of summons as well. They would leave the decision at the hands of this court. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18907 CRP No. 23 of 2020 5. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of events and the dates are all a matter of record. Prima facie, the case would clearly depict the indolence on the part of the petitioners. Equity would undoubtedly depend upon the diligence of any litigant, as delay would defeat equity. In the case at hand, the issue is with regard to the rights of property of the petitioner which is a constitutional right as well. On the said premise, I deem it appropriate to notice the orders passed by the concerned courts. The concerned court i.e., the Trial Court at the outset rejects the suit for its non-prosecution. The respondents therein were also placed ex parte. The suit is dismissed on the score that the petitioner has not led any evidence despite passage of 12 years. The evidence that is led is appended to the petition. In fact, the petitioner has placed his evidence by way of an affidavit way back on 03.11.2016. Though it was delayed by several years, it was prior to the passage of the order of dismissal for its non-prosecution. 6. The petitioner then files a Miscellaneous Application seeking recalling of the order on the score that he had already filed his evidence. The court rejects the petition on the score - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18907 CRP No. 23 of 2020 that the matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence on 24.08.2017 and has not led any evidence. Long before that the evidence had been placed before the concerned court. Therefore, there is an error in observation by the concerned court to reject the plaint. The petitioner then files a Miscellaneous Appeal before the Court of Session before the First Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.8/2018. Though the First Appellate Court records the dates on which the petitioner was granted an opportunity to lead his evidence, but the fact that had been recorded by the Trial Court that the petitioner had not led any evidence, is carried on to the First Appellate Court as well. 7. In the light of the property of the petitioner being put to jeopardy by the defendants and right to property and recognising the right to property of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to grant him one opportunity to conclude the proceedings before the concerned court. In that light, the orders of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court stands obliterated. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Trial Court. The suit in O.S.No.45/2005 stands restored. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18907 CRP No. 23 of 2020 Since suit is of the year 2005, the Trial Court shall conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of six months. 8. It is needless to observe that the petitioner has to cooperate for the conclusion of the proceedings. In the event, the petitioner would again display indolence, it is open to the concerned court to pass necessary orders, in accordance with law and it is made clear that any other attempt of the petitioner to challenge the said order which is dismissal for non- prosecution on his own accord, will not be entertained. 9. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned court on 20.06.2025 and the Trial Court shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings within six months from 20.06.2025. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT:SS