- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42542 RFA No. 2320 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2320 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. MUBEENA W/O LATE FAZLU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. ALTHAF S/O LATE FAZLU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3. RUHULLA S/O LATE FAZLU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4. MUSTHAFA S/O ANWAR SAB AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, (ALL ARE R/O GOPALADEVARAHALLI, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI,SIRA TALUK - 572 125 TUMAKURU DISTRICT) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GANAPATI S. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G.S. SHEELA RANI W/O LATE G R NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. N. SRIMANU PRASAD S/O LATE G R NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42542 RFA No. 2320 of 2023 3. N. NALINA D/O LATE G R NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. N. RASHMI D/O LATE G R NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS (ALL ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED PLAINTIFF G.R. NAGARAJU ALL ARE R/O NO. 245, 11TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.N. VAGEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.68/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendants in O.S.No.68/2017 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, whereby the said suit filed by the plaintiff against the appellants-defendants for declaration and permanent injunction restraining them from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42542 RFA No. 2320 of 2023 interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff against the appellants - defendants. 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 plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The appellants-defendants entered appearance and did not file written statement, pursuant to which, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? (ii) Whether plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by defendants? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for in the plaint? (iv) What order or decree? 4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. However, the appellants - defendants did not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42542 RFA No. 2320 of 2023 cross-examine PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence. In this context, it is the specific assertion on the part of the appellants that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants before the trial court did not inform them about the progress of the case nor secured any instructions from the appellants who were unaware of the proceedings and as such, the appellants were not in a position to file written statement, cross-examine PW-1 nor adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence. 5. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part of the appellants-defendants to contest the suit 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. 6. Per contra, it is contented by the respondents that despite granting sufficient opportunity, the appellants-defendants did not exercise due diligence in contesting the suit and as such, the trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42542 RFA No. 2320 of 2023 Court was fully justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 7. 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? 8. 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 oral and documentary evidence of PW-1 remained un-rebutted as the appellants - defendants did not file written statement nor adduced any defence evidence and therefore, proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellants that their inability and omission to file written statement, cross-examine PW- 1 and adduce defence evidence was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42542 RFA No. 2320 of 2023 opportunity to the appellants - defendants, 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. 9. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 05.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.68/2017 by the trial court is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 01.12.2025 without awaiting further notice. (v) The appellants-defendants are directed to file written statement on 01.12.2025 before the trial court. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42542 RFA No. 2320 of 2023 (vii) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the parties to file interlocutory applications, which shall be considered in accordance with law. (viii) Since the suit is of the year 2017, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. (ix) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. In view of disposal of the appeal, interim applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 CT: BHK