- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1363 WP No. 102447 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 102447 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KUMAR SOMASHEKAR S/O. LAXMICHAND GUDADAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. GIRIKUNJA NO. 139, SUPRIYA GENTS P.G. SECOND AVE, TEACHERS COLONY JAKKASANDRA, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIDYA W/O. YALLAPPA DHARMATTI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HAROGERI VILLAGE, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591112. 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O. LAXMICHAND GUDADARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O KATRAL VILLAGE, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. 3. SRI. LAXMICHAND S/O. DYAMAPPA GUDADARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUTLURE, R/O KATRAL VILLAGE, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. 4. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. DYAMAPPA GUDADARI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KATRAL VILLAGE, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. 5. SMT GANGAVVA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA BANNANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUGABASAV VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.27 16:33:51 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1363 WP No. 102447 of 2024 6. SRI. SANGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA ADINAVAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. KHB SERVANT, R/O. MUGABASAV VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. 7. SMT. TAYAVVA W/O. BASAPPA KOLI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KATRAL VILLAGE, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. 8. SRI. UMESH S/O. BASAPPA ADINAVAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGABASAV VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURURAJ R.TURUMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R8- DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 05-04-2024 PASSED ON IA NO. XV IN OS NO. 126/2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 05-04-2024 passed on IA No. XV in Os No. 126/2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti vide Annexure-G and etc. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1363 WP No. 102447 of 2024 2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.126/2017 seeking for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioner had filed an application to implead him as defendant No.4. The notice having been taken out, the petitioner not having appeared was placed ex-parte and the matter was proceeded with. The petitioner filed an application (IA.No.15) under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the ex- parte order dated 05.04.2024, which came to be dismissed by imposing cost of ₹200/- on the ground that the order of placing the defendant No.4 as ex- parte was passed on 02.12.2019 and the application has been filed after 5 years on 05.04.2024. It is challenging the same; the petitioner is before this Court 3. Learned counsel Sri H.M.Dharigond appearing for the petitioner submits that the notice which have been issued were to the address Belagavi the paper publication was taken out in Kannada Prabha daily - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1363 WP No. 102447 of 2024 newspaper, Belagavi District, while the petitioner is a resident of Jakkasandra, HSR Layout, Bengaluru and therefore the petitioner did not have knowledge about the said paper publication he could not have appeared, which fact he submits, has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 however opposed the contention of petitioner by contending that the father and mother of the petitioner being already on record. The petitioner being only a student, the father and mother could have informed the petitioner about the said paper publication. The petitioner has chosen to delay the proceedings by not appearing in the matter and now when the matter is posted for cross-examination of DW-2, an application for setting aside the ex-parte order has been made, which is only to protract the proceedings. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents No.1 and perused the papers. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1363 WP No. 102447 of 2024 6. Even according to the petitioner, the petitioner is a student and the son of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, who are defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S.no.126 of 2017. The father and mother of the petitioner being parties to the said suit, it is improbable that the pendency of the suit is not made known by them to the petitioner, who is their son. 7. Though the contention of petitioner is that the petitioner is studying in Bangalore, the fact remains that the permanent residence of the petitioner is with his parents in Savadatti, Belgaum District. If that be so, the notice could have been served on the adult member of the Petitioners family namely the parents at the address in Savadatti, surprisingly the said notice has returned unserved, requiring the paper publication to be taken out in Kannada Prabha Daily Newspaper, Belgaum edition which cannot be faulted with. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1363 WP No. 102447 of 2024 8. The manner in which the petitioner have been placed ex-parte in the year 2019, the manner in which, the application has been filed in the year 2024 when the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW-2, it would only indicates that the petitioner and defendant Nos.1 and 2 want to protract the proceedings and delay the matter by now getting the petitioner to come on record and file his written statement and delay the proceedings before the trial Court, which have taken place. 9. A perusal of the order sheet also does not inspire any confidence insofar as the conduct of defendant nos.1 and 2 are concerned. Inasmuch as they have taken several adjournments to cross-examine the plaintiff and they took several adjournments to lead their own evidence. Further, they were not present when the case was posted for the cross-examination and it is at this stage the application for setting aside the ex- parte order of the petitioner, in that view of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1363 WP No. 102447 of 2024 matter, I am of the considered opinion that the application was filed only to protract the proceedings. The petitioner having full knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings has chosen not to appear in the matter. The trial Court has been lenient enough to impose only ₹200/- cost on the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that higher cost would have to be imposed and as such imposed cost of ₹5,000/- to be paid to the Advocates’ Clerks’ Association, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad within a period of 10 days from the date of this order, i.e., on or before 06.02.2025. Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29