- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49679 RSA No. 1459 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1459 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M NAGARAJU S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SRI M KRISHNAPPA S/O LATEK MOTAPPA AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS ALL ARE R/A HALEURU VILLAGE NANDAGUDI POST AND HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK – 562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KALYAN R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KAMALAMMA D/O LATE MOTAPPA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE BIARAHALI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUKL BENGALURU – 560049 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49679 RSA No. 1459 of 2025 2. SMT. ASWATHAMMA D/O LATE MOTAPPA W/O RAJU @ MUNIRAJU AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A HANNURU BANDE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KALYAN NAGAR VILLAGE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560045 3. SRI ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE MOTAPPA AGE ABOUT 72 YEARS R/A HALEURU VILLAGE NANDAGUDI POST AND HOBLLI HOSKOTE TALUK – 562 114. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N S BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN R.A.NO.42/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49679 RSA No. 1459 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The record discloses that the suit was filed in the year 2013 seeking relief of partition and separate possession by the daughter of Motappa against the defendants who are the sons of the said Motappa. When the summons was served, defendants fail to appear before the Court. When the case was posted for judgment, at that juncture, the defendants appeared and filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC on 24.02.2015 and the same was allowed on cost of Rs.500/- and written statement was filed after 4 months i.e., on 24.06.2015 and the same was taken on record. Thereafter, Issues were framed and subsequently, plaintiff led evidence and in the meanwhile, filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and the same was allowed and amendment was carried out. On 07.07.2022, led further evidence and completed the evidence by marking the documents at Ex.P10 to P20 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49679 RSA No. 1459 of 2025 the case was adjourned for cross-examination of PW1 on 10.08.2022 but the defendants never appeared and cross- examined the witnesses. Again, the matter was adjourned to 15.09.2022 and PW1 was not cross-examined hence, taken as Nil and posted for the defendants’ evidence. On 17.10.2022 also the case was adjourned again for defendants’ evidence. In view of the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, the case was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote and the same was re-numbered as O.S.No.1101/2022 and notice was also issued and both of them have been served. Even the appellants have also been served, not taken any steps either to recall PW1 for cross-examination or to led any defendants' evidence. Ultimately, on 16.06.2023, i.e., after 6 months, the evidence of defendants was taken as nil and posted the matter for arguments and the case was posted for judgment and judgment was pronounced on 01.08.2023. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49679 RSA No. 1459 of 2025 Even this time also not filed any application for recalling or leading any evidence. 3. The records discloses that the appeal also filed with the delay of 210 days. The First Appellate Court taken note that no purpose will be served in remanding the matter since not taken any steps to cross-examine PW1 and not led any evidence. Hence, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the second appeal is filed before this Court. 4. Having considered the material on record, it discloses that the appellants were careless. It appears that the appellants are squatting on the property and not ready to give any share in the suit schedule property. In each and every stage, not cooperated to prosecute the case. When the case was posted for judgment, come up with an application and subsequently, filed written statement in 2015. When the case was disposed of in 2023, except - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49679 RSA No. 1459 of 2025 filing of written statement from 2015, the defendants have not done anything i.e., not cross-examined PW1 and also not led any defendants’ evidence till 2023 and approached the appellate court also belatedly. 5. However, Taking into note of the fact that the matter is not decided on merits and the suit is also for the relief of partition. Hence, taking into note of the conduct of the defendants, it is appropriate to remand the matter to the Trial Court with a time bound direction to dispose of the same. Hence, on cost of Rs.1,00,000/- payable within two weeks from today, the matter is remanded to the Trial Court. If cost is not deposited within two weeks from today, the appellants will not enure the benefit of this order and the order of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court will be confirmed. If cost is deposited before the Trial Court, then Trial Court take up the matter for consideration on 19.12.2025. From that date, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of 6 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49679 RSA No. 1459 of 2025 months since the suit is of the year 2013 and take up the matter on day to day basis. 6. Both the parties and respective counsels are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the suit within a time bound period of 6 months. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 19.12.2025 without expecting any notice. On deposit of the amount, the Trial Court is directed to pay Rs.80,000/- to the plaintiff and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- shall vest with the State. 8. With these observations and direction, the second appeal is disposed of. 9. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN