- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48745 CRP No. 659 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 659 OF 2025 (M) BETWEEN: SRI. V. M. SHASHIDAR S/O. LATE MAHADEV RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT D. NO. 101/2, WEAVERS COLONY, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VISHWESHWARA NAGARA, MYSURU - 570 008. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. VASUKI S/O. H. K. SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, M/S. 1357, 4TH CROSS, KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM, MYSURU - 570 004. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PALLAVA R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2025 PASSED IN MA. NO.32/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48745 CRP No. 659 of 2025 DATED 15.01.2025 PASSED IN MISC. NO.18/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ,III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU. 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.Nanjunda Swamy N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Pallava R., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.315/2015. The said suit came to be decreed ex- parte. 3. To set aside the ex-parte decree, a petition came to be filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter 8CPC9 for short) which was numbered as Miscellaneous No.18/2020 which on contest, came to be dismissed, noting the fact that in the execution petition, the defendant had appeared and there was a delay. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48745 CRP No. 659 of 2025 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant filed an appeal before the V Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC in M.A.No.32/2025. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the said appeal, inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 as under: <14. Admittedly, the petitioners have though appeared through their counsels in O.S No.315/2015 but failed to file written statement. The trial court has considered the matter on merits and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Subsequently, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the petitioner has filed a miscellaneous case to set aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.315/2015. The said trial court dismissed the said miscellaneous petition on merits with a finding that the said suit was disposed off on merits and not exparte judgment. Hence, the Misc No.18/2020 came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioner has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed in Misc. No.18/2020 by the trial court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48745 CRP No. 659 of 2025 15. On perusal of records, it does not disclose that the petitioner was diligent enough to prosecute the case through his counsel. The petitioner has produced the medical records to show sufficient grounds for his non-appearance to prosecute the case of the respondent who is the defendant in O.S.No.315/2015. The petitioner though produced medical records, but failed to explain what hurdle he had to file his written statement by way of pleadings and to contest the case of the plaintiff with his righteous defense, when he has not exhausted his remedy before the trial court in O.S No.315/2015 cannot seek the protection preferring this Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the order of the trial court passed in Misc. No.18/2020. The order passed in Misc No.18/2020 is a considered order, not exparte order, hence the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in this petition. The trial court has rightly considered the case on merits and dismissed the Miscellaneous No.18/2020. The grounds urged by the petitioner seeking the relief is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The citations furnished by the petitioner in his support is not applicable to the case on hand. The petitioner has to explain this court how diligent he was in prosecuting the case before the trial court. Though having due diligence could not contest the case with sufficient grounds to treat the uncontested case by the defendant as exparte. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48745 CRP No. 659 of 2025 Hence, the said citations do not suffice for consideration to grant the relief in their favour. The ingredients of Order 9 Rule 13 does not fulfill the contents of the petition, hence the petition is devoid of merits and hence liable to be dismissed. In this case, the discretion exercised by the Trial Court seems to be well reasoned and well founded based on settled principles of law. As such, this Court has to refrain from interfering with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court and to confirm the order impugned in this appeal. Hence, I am inclined to hold the Point No.1 in the Negative and Point No.2 in the Affirmative.= 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, it is the defendant who has filed the present revision petition challenging the order of dismissal of application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC confirmed by the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.32/2025. 7. At the outset, it is noted that the suit is for recovery of money by the plaintiff from the defendant. Matter does not require much indulgence by this Court except to permit the defendant to have his defence placed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48745 CRP No. 659 of 2025 before the Trial Court on payment of reasonable cost inasmuch as an ex-parte decree shall not be allowed to continue for all time to come. 8. Reasons assigned by the defendant though not satisfactory, since the decree is an ex-parte decree, an opportunity needs to be provided to the defendant to contest the suit. 9. Hardship that has been caused to the plaintiff cannot be lost sight of at the time of affording such a reasonable opportunity for the defendant. 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that, if cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the revision petitioner and permit him to contest the suit in a time bound manner, ends of justice would be met especially when the suit is one for recovery of money. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48745 CRP No. 659 of 2025 11. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed. ii. Consequently, ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.315/2015 dated 26.09.2015 confirmed in Misc. No.18/2020 dated 15.01.2025 and M.A.No.32/2025 dated 25.07.2025 is hereby set aside. iii. Suit is ordered to be adjudicated afresh subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the revision petitioner (defendant) to the plaintiff on or before 10.12.2025. iv. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 15.12.2025. v. Payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- is condition precedent to proceed to participate further in the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48745 CRP No. 659 of 2025 vi. Taking note of the fact that the suit is one for recovery of money, filed in the year 2015, learned Trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same on or before 31.07.2026. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55