- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44393 CRP No. 70 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 70 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. K.P. LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O PUPPE GOWDA R/O KANNAYAKANAHALLY, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUQ - 573 115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KAVITHA SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O N. SHIVAKUMAR R/O MAHADEVARAHALLY VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUQ, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 118. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2019 PASSED IN MA NO 16/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2018 PASSED IN C.MISC.01/2013 ON THE FILE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44393 CRP No. 70 of 2020 OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELUR DISMISSING THE ORDER FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri B.A.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The respondent served with the notice and remained absent. The present revision petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.137/2011, which is filed for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell. 2. The said suit came to be decreed exparte. A miscellaneous case came to be filed by the defendant, which was dismissed on 28.05.2018. 3. Being not satisfied with the same, the defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.16/2018. The said suit also came to be dismissed by order dated 07.11.2019. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44393 CRP No. 70 of 2020 4. Thereafter the decree holder filed an execution petition before the appropriate court for executing the decree. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.16/2018 confirming the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition in C.Mis.No.1/2013, the present revision petition is filed. 6. Sri B.A.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that both the courts have not properly appreciated that the decree admittedly is an exparte decree and therefore, not affording the opportunity for the defendant to contest the suit on merits has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision. 7. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the defendant has taken contention that there was not proper service of summons. But the learned Judge in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44393 CRP No. 70 of 2020 the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.10 and 11 has taken into consideration the service of summons and also the cross- examination of the very same defendant who was examined as P.W.1 in C.Mis.No.1/2013, wherein he has stated that from the inception, he is living in Kannayakanahally. He also stated that he was earlier residing in Malagere village and his native village is Kannayakanahally. He has also stated that up to the year 2007 he resided in Kannayakanally and in the year 2007 he shifted to Malagere village. 9. Further, on perusal of the endorsement in Ex.P.1, which is the suit summons, the process staff has made an endorsement to the effect that on visiting the address shown in the summons, he has informed the contents of the summons to the inmates of the house and they refused to receive the same. 10. Therefore, the refusal shara acted upon by the Trial Court is just and proper in the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge. 11. It is a settled principle of law and requires no emphasis that if a person, knowing fully about the suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44393 CRP No. 70 of 2020 summons, refuses to receive the summons and contest the suit, he cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that there was no proper service of summons. 12. Moreover, the official act discharged by the process staff of the concerned court is presumed to be correct under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act. No doubt such a presumption can be rebutted by placing cogent evidence on record, but the defendant has not placed any such evidence so as to rebut the presumption available to the process staff. 13. Further, the process server is a total stranger to the defendant, who did not nurture any previous enmity as against the revision petitioner nor extra affinity towards the plaintiff in the suit. 14. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the miscellaneous petition, which has been upheld by the First Appellate Court, needs no interference, that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44393 CRP No. 70 of 2020 ORDER The revision petition is merit less and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8