- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41588 RFA No. 1976 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1976 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION BUILDINGS N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND REPRESENTED BY ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MR. O.G. YOGESH S/O. LATE MR. B. ONKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATYANAND B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. RAFEEK PASHA S/O. MR. IMTIYAZ AHAMED AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT BALLAR HALISHA COMPOUND HIPPE ANJANEYA TEMPLE, ADEPTE, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL – 562 123. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) [ THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5053/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41588 RFA No. 1976 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.5053/2023 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.04.2025 passed by the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff against the appellant-defendant for permanent injunction restraining it from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The appellant-defendant entered appearance but failed to file written statement, pursuant to which, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41588 RFA No. 1976 of 2025 (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendant? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (iv) What order or decree? 4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. However, the appellant-defendant did not cross- examine PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of its defence. In this context, it is the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that it had entered appearance through its counsel and time was granted for filing written statement and objections to I.A. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant-defendant to contest the suit after commencement of evidence of the respondent - plaintiff was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and it is therefore necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41588 RFA No. 1976 of 2025 5. Per contra, it is contented by the respondent that despite granting sufficient opportunity, the appellant-defendant did not exercise due diligence in contesting the suit and as such, the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? 7. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the Trial Court has taken into account the fact that the evidence of PW-1 remained un-rebutted and that the appellant - defendant did not adduce any defence evidence and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that its inability and omission to cross-examine PW-1 and adduce defence evidence was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41588 RFA No. 1976 of 2025 and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellant - defendant, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions. 8. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 03.04.2025 passed in O.S.No.5053/2023 by the XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) The appellant-defendant is directed to cross-examine PW-1 on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court. (v) I.A.2/2025 for additional documents is allowed. Documents are received on record. (vi) Registry is directed to transmit I.A.2/2025 along with documents to the Trial Court forthwith. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41588 RFA No. 1976 of 2025 (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. (viii) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (ix) The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32