- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42541 RFA No. 679 of 2020 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. 679 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. SUBRAMANI A S/O SRI. ANJINAPPA PATTADI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.147 NAGAWARA MAIN ROAD, NEAR A.K. COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU - 560 045. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER MOHAMMED MUDASSIR S/O SRI MOHAMMED KHALEEL AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 2. MISS. AYISHA BATHOOL D/O SRI. MOHAMMED KHALEEL AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND MRS. MUMUTAZ JAHAN, W/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.86, 7TH CROSS, 'A' BLOCK RASHAD NAGAR, ARABIC COLLEGE POST BANGALORE - 560 045. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42541 RFA No. 679 of 2020 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR GANDHINAGAR (KACHARAKANAHALLI) BANGALORE - 560 045. 4. M/S. MAX REALITY A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY SRI. MAHESH CHANDRA SHETTY S/O P RAMACHANDRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 146/2, KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT, BEHIND H.P. PETROL BUNK, 2ND CROSS, HBR 3RD BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.C. NARASIMHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA PUJAR, HCGP FOR R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.07.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.25898/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.25898/2015 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42541 RFA No. 679 of 2020 12.07.2019 passed by the LXXIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs against the appellant-defendant No.2 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the trial Court in favour of respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs against the appellant – 2nd defendant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The appellant-2nd defendant, who is the purchaser of the suit schedule property entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the suit, pursuant to which, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed executed by their mother Mrs.P.R.Gulshad Banu in favour of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42541 RFA No. 679 of 2020 defendant No.2 dated 31.10.2011 is null and void and the same is not binding on them? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant No.2 is to be restrained from alienating / encumbering the suit schedule property to any third party? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are entitled to the relief’s as sought for in the plaint? (iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? (v) Whether the court fees paid by the plaintiff is highly insufficient? (vi) What decree or order? 4. The plaintiffs examined their next friend as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. However, the appellant- 2nd defendant did not cross-examine PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of her defence. In this context, it is the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that the trial court did not provide sufficient opportunity to contest the suit and as such, the appellant was not in a position to cross-examine PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. 5. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant-2nd defendant to contest the suit after - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42541 RFA No. 679 of 2020 commencement of evidence of the respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs 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 appellant- 2nd defendant did not exercise due diligence in contesting the suit and as such, the trial 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 evidence of PW-1 remained un- rebutted and so also the documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P19 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42541 RFA No. 679 of 2020 and that the appellant – 2nd defendant did not adduce any defence evidence and therefore, proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that his inability and omission to 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 opportunity to the appellant – 2nd defendant, 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. It is pertinent to note that in view of respondents 1 and 2 having attained majority during the pendency of the appeal, their guardianship stands discharged. 10. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42541 RFA No. 679 of 2020 (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 12.07.2019 passed in O.S.No.25898/2015 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 to appear before the trial Court on 17.11.2025 without awaiting further notice. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. (vi) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the parties to file interlocutory applications, which shall be considered in accordance with law. (vii) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (viii) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK/SRL