- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44854 CRP No. 260 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 260 OF 2020 BETWEEN: MRS. REVATHI D/O BHAGI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SATHYANATH PANDIT HOUSE KOTTAM ROAD, BEJAI KAPIKAD, MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT - 575 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR G. SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. SHEKAR S/O BABU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT LIKHITH HOUSE, CHILIMBI HILLS, SHIVAGIRI NAGAR, BEJAI MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 004. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENTS IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2020 PASSED IN MA NO.56/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., AT MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44854 CRP No. 260 of 2020 IN MISC.CASE.NO.13/2011 (IN OS No.630/2007) ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 13 R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC. TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.04.2009 PASSED IN OS NO.630/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) MANGALURU. 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.Ravishankar G. Shastry, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Respondent served and unrepresented. 2. Revision petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.630/2007, who was placed ex-parte. An ex-parte decree for specific enforcement of agreement to sell came to be passed with a condition that plaintiff decree-holder shall obtain necessary permission from the State Government within a period of two months and then the sale deed can be executed failing which the defendant is required to return the earnest money. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44854 CRP No. 260 of 2020 3. To set aside the ex-parte decree, a miscellaneous petition under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) came to be filed in Miscellaneous Petition No.13/2011. Said miscellaneous petition on contest, came to be dismissed. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in MA No.56/2018. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on merits, dismissed the appeal holding that defendant had the knowledge of the suit and conduct of the defendant would come in the way of exercising the discretion in favour of the defendant. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court in this revision. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44854 CRP No. 260 of 2020 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that in respect of rights in an immovable property, technicalities should take the back seat and ex-parte decree needs to be set aside liberally. 8. He further contended that approach of the learned Trial Judge in Miscellaneous Petition No.13/2011 and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in MA No.56/2018 is too pedantic and same has resulted in grave injustice to the rights of the defendant. 9. He would also contend that very agreement that is sought to be enforced before the Trial Court was a void agreement inasmuch as the property belonging to scheduled tribe lady was the subject matter of the suit before the Trial Court and therefore, the very suit itself was not maintainable before the Trial Court as it is hit by the provisions of law under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44854 CRP No. 260 of 2020 Certain Lands) Act and therefore, sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 10. Respondent is served with the notice and remained absent. 11. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that revision petitioner herein has denied the agreement itself. If it is so, then the question of resorting to the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, would not arise. 13. Moreover, the decree passed by the Trial Court itself shows that the plaintiff had to obtain necessary permission from the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44854 CRP No. 260 of 2020 Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act to proceed with the sale of the property. 14. Revision petitioner can very well resist such an application before the competent authority and seek redressal of the grievances. 15. At any rate, the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Judge and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while rejecting the prayer to set aside the ex-parte decree is sound and proper which requires no further interference in this revisional jurisdiction. 16. Accordingly, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26