- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29532 M.F.A. No.2995/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2995/2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: METHODS AUTOMOTIVES PVT LTD REP. BY ITS SENIOR ACCOUNTS MANAGER N. JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O S. NAGARAJ AT NO.54/55/56 SRI. LAKSHMI COMPLEX ST. MARKS ROAD BANGALORE - 560001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUNIL S, ADV.,) AND: SRI. RAVINDRA BHAT .N AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRA BHAT .N RESIDING AT NO.2/12 BDA ALF FLATS NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560096. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GANESH BHAT G.H. ADV.,) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MISC.NO.66/2023 ON THE FILE OF LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN MISC.66/2023 DATED 22.03.2024 BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE & ETC. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29532 M.F.A. No.2995/2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendant in the suit who is the petitioner in Civil Misc. No.66/2003 being aggrieved by the ex parte decree and the order passed in Misc.No.66/2023 filed under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with I.A.No.1/2025 for condonation of delay. 2. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money. It is contended that the appellant-defendant has not received summons by the Trial Court. Therefore, an ex parte decree was passed which was challenged by filing a miscellaneous petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC but the same was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that during the pendency of the appeal, this Court has ordered the appellant-defendant to deposit the entire balance amount before the Executing Court and the said amount of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29532 M.F.A. No.2995/2024 Rs.4,84,000/- was deposited before the Executing Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit summons have not been received by the defendant-appellant and if an opportunity be given to the appellant-defendant, they would contest the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and remand the matter back to the Trial Court for consideration of the suit afresh. 4. The appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff who submitted that the defendant has received the suit summons as per the admission in the cross-examination. Therefore, the defendant knew very well about the proceedings and it could not be said that the defendant is ignorant of the case filed against him before the Trial Court. Therefore, passing of ex parte decree in a suit and also dismissal of the case filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC is justified. 5. It is the assertion made by the appellant that the defendant has not received summons in the suit. Regarding the service of summons, there is no reflection in inward register of the defendant-Company. Therefore, the defendant did not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29532 M.F.A. No.2995/2024 know about the suit proceedings. Hence, he could not appear in the suit. Upon considering the rival submissions, the judgment and decree is an ex parte decree, this Court is of the opinion that the defendant also be given an opportunity to contest the suit. Therefore, though the ex parte decree of the Trial Court may not be found fault with but the defendant in the suit have not represented the suit. Thus, the judgment and decree is amounting to uncontested suit. Therefore, in order to give one more opportunity to the defendant, the suit is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellant-defendant to the plaintiff- respondent. Whatever observations above shall not be considered as discussion on merits of the case. The Trial Court shall consider the case independently. All the contentions are left open. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed in Misc.No.66/2003 by the LX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Court, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29532 M.F.A. No.2995/2024 Bengaluru, is set aside. The suit is remanded to the Trial Court. (iii) Both the parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 08.09.2025 without expecting any notice from the Trial Court. Opportunity may be granted to defend the suit. Parties are given at liberty to adduce evidence either oral or documentary or both. All the contentions are left open. (iv) Amount in deposit before the Executing Court shall be transferred to the Trial Court where the suit is pending for consideration. (v) The Registry shall invest the said amount in a fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank so as to earn interest. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35