- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39534 MSA No. 01 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2025 (RO) BETWEEN: SRI. T.H. MANJAPPA S/O HALASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT LOKIKERE VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 544 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ADINARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VINAY M.K. S/O LATE. SANNA KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1311, 2ND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, BEHIND VINAYAK HOSPITAL, CHANDRA LAYOUT, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 040. 2. SMT. PUSHPA KARIBASAPPA W/O SANNA KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.481/2, B.T. GALLI DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATISHCHANDRA .R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43 RULE (1)(U) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.49/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39534 MSA No. 01 of 2025 JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED IN OS. NO.118/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. THE CASE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANTS TO FILE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND TO LEAD EVIDENCE. THIS MSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being the plaintiff in OS.No.118/2018 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') is impugning the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2024 passed in RA No.49/2022 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court') allowing the appeal by condoning the delay and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Trial Court and remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39534 MSA No. 01 of 2025 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Heard Sri.Adinarayanappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Satischandra.R., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 4. In the light of the rival contentions urged by learned Counsel for both parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality and needs any interference by this Court ?" My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 5. The appellant had filed the suit OS.No.118/2018 before the Trial Court seeking specific performance of the contract. It is contended that the defendants therein have executed an agreement to sell as per Ex.P1, agreeing to sell - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39534 MSA No. 01 of 2025 the schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.3,60,000/-. Subsequently, they have not executed the sale deed as agreed and therefore, the plaintiffs sought for specific performance of contract. The defendants therein were placed exparte, and a decree was passed directing the defendants to execute the sale deed. 6. It is stated that the plaintiff filed Ex.No.140/2020 before the Trial Court and deposited an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- seeking execution of the decree. In the meantime, respondent No.1 herein being the son of defendant No.1 in the suit and respondent No.2 herein being defendant No.2 have preferred appeal RA No.49/2022 challenging the exparte decree for specific performance of contract passed by the Trial Court. The said RA was allowed as per judgment dated 29.10.2024, exparte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set-aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh disposal, directing both parties to appear before the Trial Court on 27.11.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39534 MSA No. 01 of 2025 7. On consideration of the facts of the case, it is noticed that the suit OS.No.118/2018 came to be decreed exparte. Many grounds were raised in RA No.49/2022 seeking to set aside the exparte decree and the same was considered by the First Appellate Court to allow RA No.49/2022. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the Judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. However, I find considerable force in the contention taken by the appellant/plaintiff that the agreement to sell is dated 26.02.2015, more than 10 years have lapsed and the appellant has already deposited Rs.3,10,000/- before the executing Court. But the same cannot be a ground to set- aside the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the interest of both parties could be safeguarded by passing the following by answering the above point in the negative: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit OS.No.118/2018 expeditiously and dispose of the same atleast within six months from the date of receipt of this order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39534 MSA No. 01 of 2025 Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court in such expeditious disposal of the suit in a time bound manner. Since the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019 is already set-aide, Ex.No.140/2020 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the amount, which is already deposited. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15