- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40586 CRP No. 186 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 186 OF 2017 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI A VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE PUNYAKOTI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.35 VANDANA SAROVAR, PLOT NO.411, JAKKASANDRA, KORAMANGALA, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N. MADHU S/O G. NATARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT M. GANDHINAGAR, MUNEKOLALA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 087. 2. SMT. VENKATAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 3. SMT. LAGUMAMMA D/O LATE YELLAPPA, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40586 CRP No. 186 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 4. SMT. LAKSHMI D/O LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 5. SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 6. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.107, RAMAGONDANAHALLI, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.N. RAJESWARA AND MANJUNATH K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A.S. MAHESH ADVOCATE FOR R6; V/O DATED 27.09.2018 R3-R5 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DEAD R2; V/O DATED 03.06.2022 NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 8.3.2017 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN P & SC.5/09 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DIST, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 7 OF CPC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40586 CRP No. 186 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. P. N Rajeshwara, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and none appears for the petitioner. 2. Respondent who was placed ex-parte in P and SC No.5/2009, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC before the trial Court seeking setting aside of the ex- parte order. Same was rejected by the Learned trial Judge. Validity of the said order is called in question in this revision petition. 3. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner is absent and revision petition is of the year 2017 and the main matter before the trial Court is stayed, this Court perused the material on record in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner having heard the arguments of Sri. P. N Rajeshwara, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. On such perusal, it is noticed that the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order has assigned good reasons for dismissal of the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40586 CRP No. 186 of 2017 But fact remains that, it is the respondent who was the petitioner before the Court is put to hardship by pendency of the present revision petition as the will sought to be propounded by the petitioner is not yet proved and the matter is pending since the year 2009. 5. Normally an application filed under Order IX Rule 7 Would be allowed by the Court and only in exceptional circumstances, such applications need to be rejected. 6. No such exceptional reasons are forthcoming from the impugned order, though good reasons are found in the impugned order for rejection of application filed under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. 7. Taking note of the fact that the judgment that would be passed after the contest would act as a judgment in rem, it is just and necessary that the respondent who is the revision petitioner be allowed to contest the petition on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the contesting respondent, who is the petitioner before the trial Court and proceed with the case. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40586 CRP No. 186 of 2017 8. Accordingly without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, following order is passed: ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed. (ii) On payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the contesting respondent, order of placing the revision petitioner who is respondent before the trial Court as ex-parte is hereby set aside. (iii) Parties are directed to be present before the trial Court positively on 27.10.2025 and proceed with the case. (iv) Payment of cost is condition precedent for further participation of the revision petitioner. (v) For some reason if the revision petitioner does not appear before the trial court taking note of the fact that the revision petitioner is absent before this Court, the trial Court shall issue court notice by speed post as well as through Court and then proceed with the case in accordance with law. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5