- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7947 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MUNIRAMA BHOVI ALIAS MUNIYA BHOVI S/O YELLA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 2. 2(A) MUNIKRISHNA BHOVI S/O YELLA BHOVI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. NEELAMMA D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNA BHOVI W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2(B). SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNA BHOVI W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2(C). SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2(D). SRI. ANANDA S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 3. NARAYANAPPA S/O YELLA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 4. NAGARAJA BHOVI S/O YELLA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ALL ARE R/O M. KRISHNASAGARA VILLAGE SULIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI-560 060 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VARAPRASAD K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. SRI. THIMMAHANUMEGOWDA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 3. SRI. KANTHARAJU S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI-560 060 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 4. M/S. K.N.S PROPWORTH LLP AN LLP REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY OF PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2009 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1125/12, 1ST FLOOR, SERVICE ROAD HAMPINAGAR, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 104 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SUMANTH GOWDA H.P …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DTD.09.07.2025 NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DTD.21.07.2025 NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(c) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2024 PASSED IN MISC.NO.62/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/ petitioners in Miscellaneous No. 62/2021, on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, have assailed the order dated 08.02.2024 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 passed in Miscellaneous No.62/2021 dismissing their petition for restoration of their suit filed in O.S.No.1836/2014 on the ground of limitation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, the appellants filed a suit in O.S.No.1836/2014 seeking relief of declaration and injunction. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 04.12.2018 for non- prosecution. These appellants filed Miscellaneous Petition for restoration of the said suit by invoking the provision of Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is stated by them that, they have shown the bona fide reasons for not appearing before the Court on 04.12.2018. It is further submitted that, as the brother of the appellants was not keeping well and he was suffering from gangrene, though the medical records were produced, they were not looked into by the trial Court and has dismissed the suit so filed by the appellants. The petition for restoration was wrongly dismissed on the point of limitation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 4. He submits that, the appellants have got a very good case on merits in the aforesaid original suit. If the impugned order is not set aside, the rights of the plaintiffs will be jeopardized. Therefore, it is submitted to set aside impugned order. 5. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments for the learned counsel for the appellants, as per the say of the appellants, they have filed a suit in O.S.No. 1836/2014 for the relief of declaration with other consequential relief's. They sought title to the property by way of declaration. In the said suit, respondents/defendants appeared and filed their written statement. In the said suit, plaintiff No. 1 entered the witness box, but he took time for production of documents. It is stated that, plaintiff No. 1 was suffering from age-old ailments, including lower back pain etc., and he was under medical treatment. Further, it is stated that, in the month of November 2018, the appellant no. 1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 fell seriously ill, could not move, he was bedridden, and he was under complete medical treatment. It is stated that, therefore, he could not keep himself present before the Court to undergo cross-examination. 6. On 04.12.2018 the said suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. There are bona fide reasons. It is further stated that, the illness of the plaintiff No. 1 continued and he was completely bedridden and he was under bed rest. He recovered in the month of February, 2020, and during that time there was an outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Therefore, he could not collect the documents. Even he tested positive for COVID-19 and took treatment for 6 months. In the month of April and May 2021, there was a complete lockdown due to second wave of COVID-19. Therefore, the appellants were constrained to be in the house. After lifting of the lockdown, the plaintiff No. 1 collected the documents and consulted his counsel in the second week of October 2021 and furnished the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 documents to his counsel. Because of the aforesaid reasons, there was a delay in filing the Miscellaneous Petition for seeking restoration. It is further stated that, plaintiff No. 2 was suffering from gangrene of his right leg and he was advised to have an amputation. Plaintiff No. 2 also underwent surgery and his right leg was amputated. Therefore, as the appellants were undergoing treatment, they could not appear before the Court on the relevant date. Therefore, it is prayed by the petitioners/appellants in the said petition to allow the petition. 7. The said petition was opposed by the respondents by appearing before the trial Court by denying all the assertions made in the petition. Even before the trial Court, petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 to support his plea pleaded in the petition. But the learned trial Court answered all the points for consideration in the negative and dismissed the petition seeking restoration of the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 This is how, now the petitioners/appellants are before this Court challenging the said impugned order. 8. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, the suit is filed in O.S.No.1836/2014 seeking relief for declaration of the title of the plaintiffs with consequential reliefs. The respondents have appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement. In the said original suit, plaintiff No.1 was examined in part. In the meantime, as he was suffering from deceases, because of his age-old ailments, suffering from back pain and other ailments he could not appear before the Court. It is further stated that, in the month of November 2018, the plaintiff No. 1 fell seriously ill and was bedridden. In the meantime, because of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, he could not meet his counsel because of complete lockdown. It is stated that, plaintiff No. 2 was suffering from gangrene. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 9. To support the said facts, the petitioners have produced the medical documents at Ex.P3. As per the say of the appellants, the trial Court has not considered these medical records and simply dismissed the application on the ground of delay. Even the brother of the plaintiff No. 1, by name Munikrishna Bhovi, who was plaintiff No.2, has died. To that effect, he has produced his death certificate at Ex.P4. 10. I have scrupulously perused the findings of the trial Court. Though the appellants have produced the medical documents to show the illness of the plaintiff No. 1 and also illness of deceased plaintiff No. 2, whose right leg was amputated, those facts are not properly considered by the trial Court. On technical ground of limitation, the trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellants seeking restoration of suit so filed by them in O.S.No.1836/2014, which was dismissed on 04.12.2018. If the suit of the plaintiffs is decided on the merits, it would meet the ends of justice. So far as the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 condonation of delay is concerned, the Court has to apply the liberal approach and then condone the delay and see that, the lis is decided on merits. On technical grounds, if the delay is not condoned, it would affect the rights of the parties. The reasons so assigned by the trial Court are not proper and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Technical reasons assigned by the trial Court, which are against the principles with regard to the condonation of delay. Therefore, in view of the grounds so urged in the appeal memo as well as the grounds stated by the appellants in the petition, I am of the considered view that, the appellants have made out grounds to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 08.02.2024 passed in Miscellaneous No. 62/2021 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28110 MFA No. 7947 of 2024 (iii) Consequentially, the order of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.1836/2014 dated 04.12.2018 is also set aside by condoning the delay. The suit in O.S.No.1836/2014 is restored to its file. (iv) As the suit is of the year 2014, the learned trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously with all its promptitude. (v) The parties to this appeal shall appear before the trial Court on 06.08.2025 without expecting notice from the trial Court. (vi) All pending I.A's are disposed of. (vii) No orders as to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12