- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33887 RFA No. 1693 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1693 OF 2023 (MON) BETWEEN: SRI KANTEPPA TENGLI S/O VEERUPAKSHAPPA TENGLI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED GOVT. SERVANT, R/O PLOT NO.21, SANTOSH COLONY, DEVI NAGAR, ALAND ROAD, BEHIND CHORGUMBAD, KALABURAGI-585103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHANTKUMAR NAGAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SRIDHAR DHANASHRI S/O VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NO.3, K.G. ROAD EXTENSION 3RD CROSS, BENGALURU-560009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MANJUNATHA K., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6344/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33887 RFA No. 1693 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2022 in O.S.No.6344/2021 on the file of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67) (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit in part and directed the defendant to pay Rs.1,76,000/- with interest. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had not received the suit summons issued by the trial Court. The endorsement dated 28.02.2022 on the order sheet, stating that the defendant was served through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) and returned with the postal endorsement ‘refused’ is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33887 RFA No. 1693 of 2023 erroneous. In fact, the appellant-defendant never received the summons. The endorsement on the left side of the order sheet clearly indicates that none of the family members were in station at that time, and hence the summons remained unserved. Therefore, the appellant- defendant had not refused to accept any hand summons as wrongly held by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court was passed in the absence of the appellant, resulting in ex- parte judgment and decree, which is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court, on proper appreciation of the material on record, has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money, and the same does not warrant any interference. It is further contended that even if the appellant-defendant had appeared before the trial Court, the result would not have been different, since there is sufficient material on record to establish that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33887 RFA No. 1693 of 2023 defendant was due to the plaintiff, which is also evidenced by cheque transactions. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the suit summons issued to the defendant through RPAD was returned with postal endorsement ‘refused’ and whether the same warrants interference by this Court?” 6. The suit is one for recovery of money. The plaintiff contends that he is the son-in-law of the defendant, having married the defendant’s daughter Savitha Tengali on 01.10.2010. After the marriage, the couple resided at Bengaluru and the defendant used to frequently visit their house. It is alleged that the defendant requested the plaintiff for a hand loan, and due to the relationship, the plaintiff made payments on 16.08.2012 to 11.09.2019 on various dates through cheques, NEFT and deposit, totaling a sum of Rs.27,72,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33887 RFA No. 1693 of 2023 7. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- only placing reliance upon Ex.P3(r) to (y), 4 and (4)(a). The order sheet of the trial Court dated 28.02.2022 records the notice issued to the defendant was returned with an endorsement ‘refused’, and the Court, treating such service as sufficient, placed the defendant ex-parte and proceeded to record the evidence of the plaintiff. However, the materials on record also disclose that the endorsement on the order sheet indicated that the family members of the defendant were away from station, and hence, the summons could not be duly served. The order sheet dated 28.02.2022 reads as under: “Plaintiff – DRA issued Notice to IA (1) D1 Through Court – unserved. PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ºÀ§âPÉÌ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ KAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ïì ªÀÄgÀ½ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÁ¥À¸ï RPAD - Party refused returned to sender.” 8. In this context, the trial Court treated the service as sufficient and recorded that the summons - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33887 RFA No. 1693 of 2023 issued through RPAD has returned with the postal endorsement ‘refused’. The endorsement of the trial Court is as under: “SS issued to defendant through RPAD returned unserved with postal endorsement “Refused”. Held sufficient service. Called out absent. Placed exparte. For plaintiff’s evidence. Call on 15-03-2022.” 9. Consequently, the defendant was called absent, placed ex-parte, and the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence. In these circumstances, and without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case, this Court finds that the order of the trial Court placing the defendant ex- parte is unsustainable. Accordingly, it is appropriate to remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law and point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33887 RFA No. 1693 of 2023 ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is hereby allowed in part. ii. The judgment and decree dated 03.06.2022 passed in O.S.No.6344/2021 on the file of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67) is set aside. It is to be noted that the finding of the trial Court rejecting the plaintiff’s claim of Rs.27,72,000/- has not been challenged and has therefore attained finality, what remains for consideration is only with regard to the sum of Rs.1,76,000/-, which the trial Court held to be payable by the defendant. iii. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication, limited to the aforesaid aspect after affording sufficient opportunity to both parties to place their pleadings and evidence in accordance with law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33887 RFA No. 1693 of 2023 iv. All the contentions of the parties on the issue regarding the sum of Rs.1,76,000/- is kept open to be urged before the trial Court. The amount in deposit made by the appellant is directed to be transmitted to the trial Court and to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of two years or till the disposal of the suit, whichever is earlier. The amount in deposit, withdrawal, etc., would be subject to the final out come of the suit. Pending I.As would not survive for consideration. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9