- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42674 CRP No. 331 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 331 OF 2018 (M-) BETWEEN: SRI. SATHYA MOORTHI S/O A.S. VEDADRI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 175, 7TH CROSS, ROBERTSONPET K.G.F. - 563 122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASANTH FERNANDES, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VEENA KUMARI M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. JOHNSON PREM JOSEPH S/O THRESRAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SMT. LILLY CLARA W/O JOHNSON PREM JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING NEXT TO MADAN BUILDING, B.M.ROAD, ROBERTSONPET K.G.F. - 563 122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42674 CRP No. 331 of 2018 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2018 PASSED IN MISC.APPEAL NO.11/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF), ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED ON IA.NO.II IN MISC.NO.15/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., K.G.F., REJECTING THE IA.NO. 2 FILED UNDER SEC.5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT., 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.Vasanth Fernandes, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Veena Kumari M., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.T.M.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.22/2015 challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in MA No.11/2018 dated 20.06.2018 whereby, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42674 CRP No. 331 of 2018 allowed the miscellaneous appeal and permitted the defendants to participate in O.S.No.22/2015 subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. 3. Operative portion of the order of the First Appellate Court reads as under: “This appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is allowed. Order dated 31032018 passed by learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge at KGF in Mis.No.15/2016 is setaside. I.A.No.II filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and also main petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in said Mis. No.15/2016 are allowed and exparte judgment and decree dated 3110 2015 passed in O.S.No.22/2015 are setaside. The said O.S.No.22/2015 is restored on Board for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the defendants therein to file their defence and then after giving opportunity to place their oral and documentary evidence, with following conditions: Petitioners herein who are defendants of O.S.No.22/2015 shall appear before the Court below voluntarily on 30062018 and pay cost of Rs.5,000/ to the plaintiff of said suit before the trial court on the same day and then they shall proceed with the said suit by filing their written statement within 15 days. Garnishee order passed by the Court below in Ex.No.4/2016 relating to amount in deposit at - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42674 CRP No. 331 of 2018 Canara Bank, Robertsonpet Branch, K.G.F., in the name of defendant No.1 bearing Deposit No.0671362000001/1 shall continue till disposal of suit in O.S.No.22/2015 to secure the recovery of decretal amount to the plaintiff of said suit in case he gets decree after restoration of said suit. If period of said F.D. is expired or it is nearer to expire, suitable instruction may be given for renewal of F.D. till disposal of said suit. Parties shall bear their own cost. Draw up decree accordingly.” 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under: 4.1. A suit for recovery of money came to be filed by the revision petitioner as plaintiff in O.S.No.22/2015. 4.2. Suit came to be decreed ex-parte and decree was sought to be executed. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, there was an attachment of the fixed deposit and garnishee was directed to keep the fixed deposit for the benefit of the decree. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42674 CRP No. 331 of 2018 4.3. In the meantime, defendants filed a miscellaneous petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC which was registered in Misc. Petition No.15/2016. Said petition was contested by the plaintiff and by considered order dated 31.03.2018, came to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal in MA No.11/2018. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after notifying the plaintiff and hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and permitted the defendants to participate in the suit in accordance with law as referred to supra in the operative portion. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42674 CRP No. 331 of 2018 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that there was no scope for filing an appeal before the First Appellate Court. 9. Nevertheless, the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the appeal which is a revisable order under Section 115 of CPC. Therefore, sought for setting aside the order of the First Appellate Court and confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in dismissing the miscellaneous petition and whereby decree to be made absolute. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court. 11. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42674 CRP No. 331 of 2018 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear suit in O.S.No.22/2015 came to be filed for recovery of the money. 13. Admittedly, defendants were served and they did not appear before the Court. Therefore, they were placed ex-parte and decree came to be passed. Ex-parte decree was sought to be executed by filing execution petition. 14. It is at that juncture, Misc. Petition No.15/2016 came to be filed by the defendants which on the ground of limitation, came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. 15. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in MA No.11/2018. 16. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court noting that the decree that is assailed was an ex-parte decree; used its discretion and allowed the appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42674 CRP No. 331 of 2018 17. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff did not question the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII of CPC on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. 18. In other words, he is a party to the proceedings and did not raise the objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. 19. Therefore, he cannot now contend that the order of the First Appellate Court is without jurisdiction. 20. Nevertheless, since the ex-parte decree is now set aside and the defendants are permitted to contest the suit and suit being one for recovery of money, pending since 2015, if the suit itself is directed to be expedited and concluded within a time frame, ends of justice would be met. 21. Accordingly, following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42674 CRP No. 331 of 2018 ORDER Revision petition stands disposed of by directing the defendants to cooperate for the early disposal and learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the suit on or before end of February, 2026. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45