1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.6409 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAMALLAPPA, D/O LATE BASAPA @ VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HEDIYALA VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK-571301 MYSURU DISTRICT. 2. SMT. NIRMALAMMA W/O LATE GURUBASAPPA D/O LATE BASAPA @ VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS HEDIYALA VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK-571301 MYSURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE BASAPA @ VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, HEDIYALA VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK-571301 MYSURU DISTRICT 2. SMT NAGAMMA W/O NAGARAJU D/O LATE BASAPA @ VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HEDIYALA VILLAGE 2 NANJANGUD TALUK-571301 MYSURU DISTRICT 3. SHIVAPPA S/O LATE BASAPA @ VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS HEDIYALA VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK-571301 MYSURU DISTRICT 4. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE BASAPA @ VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS HEDIYALA VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK-571301 MYSURU DISTRICT 5. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE R VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A LINGANAPURA VILLAGE, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313 6. SINGEGOWDA S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A CHANGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE SARAGUR HOBLI, H D KOTE TALUK-571114 MYSURU DISTRICT 7. SRINIVASA S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A CHANGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARAGUR HOBLI HD KOTE TALUK-571114 MYSURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (R-1 TO R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO A)CALL FOR THE RECORDS. B) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU IN MISC.NO.26/2018 DTD 28.06.2018 UNDER ANNEXURE- D ALLOW THE SAME AND RESTORE THE APPEAL ON FILE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, DR. K.MANMADHA RAO, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the order dated 28.06.2018 in Misc.No.26/2018 (Annexure-D) passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as “The Appellate Court” for short). 2. Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.21/2015 and Petitioners in Misc.No.26/2018. Respondents herein were Defendants in O.S.No.21/2015 and Respondents in Misc.No. 26/2018. 4 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Though notices were served to Respondents 1 to 7, they are unrepresented. 4. The facts in brief are as follows: Petitioners herein are the daughters of Late Basappa @ Veerappa through his first wife. Respondent No.2 is the 2nd wife of Basappa @ Veerappa and Respondents 2 to 4 are daughters and sons of Respondent No.1 through Late Basappa @ Veerappa. Respondent No.5 is the Mortgagee to whom the Suit Schedule Property is mortgaged by Respondents No.1, 3 and 4. Respondents 6 and 7 are sons of purchaser Late Narasimhe Gowda. Petitioners filed a suit claiming that they are entitled to 1/6th share in all the three items of suit schedule property. The Respondents/defendants No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 remained exparte. The Respondent No.5 though appeared, did not file written statement. The trial court decreed the suit for 1/6th share in suit schedule property. However, it was confined only to Item No 2 and Item No 3 of the schedule properties thereby excluding item No.1 of suit schedule property that was alienated in favor of Late Narsimhe gowda father of Respondent Nos.6 and 7. 5 Petitioners being aggrieved by the decree in the said suit, filed an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in F.R.R.A.26/2018 wherein office objections were raised, after giving some time, the Learned Judge dismissed the appeal for default. Against the same, an application dated 23.03.2018 was filed for setting aside of order of dismissal. In the said application, notices were served to Respondents No.3 and 5, but did not appear and steps were ordered against Respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Since the counsel for Respondents No.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 were absent, the petition was dismissed against them. The Learned Judge by an Order dated 28.06.2018, dismissed the application. Petitioners having no other efficacious alternative remedy, approached this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that dismissal for non prosecution on the ground of non compliance of office objections was illegal and unjust and thereby resulting in injustice. It is further contended that the application was wrongly dismissed against Respondents even though they did not appear despite service of notice. 6 6. It is also contended that the learned Judge ought to have set aside by giving an opportunity to produce valuation certificate/slip and decided appeal on merits. The Court having decreed the suit, excluded item no-1 of the suit schedule property and as such it is not sustainable. 7. On hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for default on the ground that no representation is made on behalf of the appellants and the office objections are not complied with and further, it appears that petitioners are not diligent in proceeding with the matter. Further, it is observed that the office objection of the Appellate Court is that the petitioners/appellants failed to file the valuation slip. Therefore, it is a fit case to be remitted back for fresh consideration. 8. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal for the simple reason of non-compliance of office objection, i.e., for non-filing of valuation slip, which is not a serious objection calling for dismissal of the appeal itself. Further, it is observed that without taking any lenient view for the 7 absence of counsels and the parties, dismissal of the appeal on the mere ground of non-filing of valuation slip, is unwarranted. Therefore, it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order. 9. For the reasons stated supra, the petition is allowed. The order dated 28.06.2018 in Misc.No.26/2018 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration and further petitioner is directed to file valuation slip before the appellate court within a period of fifteen days from the date receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the appellate court has to adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to both the parties, if the petitioners fails to file the valuation slip within the stipulated period of fifteen days, this order would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-adp