- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41264 RFA No. 2191 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2191 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SHANTHA G. D/O. LATE S. GIRIYAPPA AGED 48 YEARS, 2. H.G. ANANDA S/O. LATE S. GIRIYAPPA AGED 43 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.26, 17TH CROSS KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BHEL LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINGARA BENGALURU - 560 098. 3. H.S. VENKATESH S/O. LATE G. SOMU AGED 73 YEARS, 4. H.S. JAYAKUMAR S/O. LATE G. SOMU AGED 61 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT HONAKERE VILLAGE MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 227. TUMAKURU DISTRICT …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41264 RFA No. 2191 of 2025 (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIJAYALAKSHMI C. W/O LATE GIRIDHAR AGED 59 YEARS, 2. ARUNKUMAR G. S/O. LATE GIRIDHAR AGED 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT HOANKERE VILLAGE MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 227 TUMAKURU DISTRICT BOTH ARE NOW R/AT ALF, NO.11/3, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BEHIND S G INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESHA K., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.11/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TURUVEKERE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41264 RFA No. 2191 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendants in O.S.No.11/2022 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent- plaintiffs against the appellant - defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule property was decreed by the trial court in favour of the respondent against the plaintiff. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the original propositus was one G. Somaiah who was married to one Smt. Lingamma and both of them have expired. The aforesaid Somaiah and Lingamma had four sons namely, S.Giriyappa, H.S.Venkatesh, S.Giridhara and H.S.Jayakumar. Amongst whom, Giriyappa and Giridhara have expired. The plaintiffs are the wife and son of the aforesaid Giridhar while defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the children of Giriyappa. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the other two sons of Late Somaiah and Lingamma. The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendants for partition and separate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41264 RFA No. 2191 of 2025 possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. 3. The said suit was not contested by the appellant - defendants who remained ex parte, pursuant to which the trial Court permitted the plaintiffs to examine plaintiff No.2 as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and placing reliance upon their oral evidence and the documentary evidence at Exhibits as Ex. P1 to Ex.P27, the trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants who are before this court in the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the appellants were not in a position to approach their counsel nor make arrangements or give instructions to file the written statement and contest the suit and by the time they approached the trial Court in this regard, the matter was already posted for judgment and the trial Court rejected the application filed by appellant-defendants under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, 1908 and proceeded to pass the ex parte impugned judgment and decree. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41264 RFA No. 2191 of 2025 5. It is submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the appellants to file written statement and contest the suit was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and if the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the mater is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by giving one more opportunity to the appellants, the appellants would appear before the trial court, file the written statement and contest the suit on merits. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection for the impugned judgment and decree to be set aide subject to imposition of exemplary costs upon the appellants and with a direction to the appellants to file the written statement on a date of hearing to be fixed by this Court for appearance of the parties and with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within the stipulated time frame. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and joint submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned ex parte judgment and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41264 RFA No. 2191 of 2025 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 03.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.11/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, is hereby set aside subject to filing of written statement by the appellants and payment of cost in a sum Rs.25,000/- to the respondents in the Trial Court. iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. iv) The appellants and respondents shall appear before the trial Court on 24.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from the trial court. v) The appellants are directed to file their written statement on 24.11.2025 without seeking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41264 RFA No. 2191 of 2025 vi) It is made clear that in the event the appellants do not file their written statement on 24.11.2025 and pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondents, the present order shall stand automatically recalled and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court shall stand affirmed. vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce evidence/additional evidence in support of their respective claims. viii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit afresh within a period of six months from 24.11.2025. ix) All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Bsv CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13