- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25248 CRP No. 656 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 656 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.MARIA MERCY, W/O. RAJU (WRONGLY SHOWN AS SMT. MERCY, W/O SAMRAJ IN HRC 5/2022) AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 32, GROUND FLOOR, FACING WEST, ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, ULSOOR BENGALURU - 560 042 REP. BY GPA HOLDER MR. RAJU S., S/O. SOLOMAN A. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH J.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PREMADEVI WODAYAR, W/O. LATE C.S. WODAYAR, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, RESIDING AT II FLOOR, NO.32 ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, ULSOOR, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25248 CRP No. 656 of 2024 BENGALURU - 560042 REPTD. BY GPA HOLDER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2024 PASSED IN MISC. NO.8/23 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/O IX RULE 13 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question twin orders; one decree in H.R.C.No.5/2022 and rejection of an appeal in Miscellaneous Appeal in Misc.No.8/2023. 2. Heard Sri. J.R. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. G.K. Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25248 CRP No. 656 of 2024 3. The petitioner is said to be the tenant in the premises owned by the respondent. There is no document of tenancy produced before the concerned Court or before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the tenancy sprang from oral agreement between the husband of the respondent and the father of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the said premises and no notice was ever served upon her. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent now submit that the postman had reached the doors of the petitioner and had dropped the article, which the petitioner acknowledges in her evidence. Therefore, it is not a case where the proceedings are held ex-parte against the petitioner. 7. A perusal at the order would indicate that no notice was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner was not made aware of the proceedings, she comes to know of it only - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25248 CRP No. 656 of 2024 after the decree is passed and the execution of the decree comes about. It is then, she prefers an Miscellaneous Appeal seeking recall of the order. The said order on the face of it, is erroneously rejected by the concerned Court, as admittedly the decree that is passed is ex-parte. 8. In that light, I deem it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the petitioner put up her defence before the concerned Court, more so in the light of the fact that there is no document of tenancy that is placed before the concerned Court by the respondent. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The orders dated 29.08.2024 in Misc.No.8/2023 and 23.09.2022 in H.R.C.No.5/2022 passed by the Chief Judge Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru stand quashed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25248 CRP No. 656 of 2024 (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Chief Judge Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, to consider the matter afresh. In the light of the issue being of the year 2022, the concerned Court shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings within six (6) months from the date of receipt the copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37