- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43842 RFA No. 2241 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2241 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ HANUMEGOWDA R/A NO. 703, "SHRIMARUTHI NILAYA", OPP: DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BALAGANGADHARANAGARA MALLATHAHALLI LAYOUT JNANABHARATHI POST BENGALURU - 560 056. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJU S, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. T NAGA REDDY S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A NO.1, 12TH CROSS ROAD ULLAL MAIN ROAD OPP: SAROJA ENGLISH MEMORIAL SCHOOL MUNESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 056. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2025 PASSED IN Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43842 RFA No. 2241 of 2025 OS NO.7535/2018 ON THE FILE OF LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.7535/2018 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2025 passed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and perused the material on record. 3. The respondent, having been served with notice of this appeal, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43842 RFA No. 2241 of 2025 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The appellant-defendant entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the suit, pursuant to which, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has constructed his residential house within his measurement by following the local laws rules? (ii) Whether the petitioner proves that the defendant is unnecessarily causing damage to his property as being alleged? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as being sought for? (iv) What order or decree? 5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P28 were marked. However, the appellant-defendant did not cross-examine PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43842 RFA No. 2241 of 2025 6. In this context, it is the specific assertion on the part of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- defendant is that, before the trial Court the appellant was not in a position to cross-examine PW-1 or adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. 7. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant-defendant to contest the suit after commencement of evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and it is therefore necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? 9. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the trial court has taken into account the fact that the evidence of PW-1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43842 RFA No. 2241 of 2025 remained un-rebutted and that the appellant-defendant did not adduce any defence evidence and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that his inability and omission to cross- examine PW-1 and adduce defence evidence was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellant-defendant, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions. 10. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.7535/2018 by the trial court is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43842 RFA No. 2241 of 2025 (iv) The appellant-defendant is directed to cross- examine PW-1 on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. (v) Appellant to appear before the trial Court on 08.12.2025 without awaiting further notice. (vi) The trial Court shall issue Court notice to the plaintiff and proceed further. (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the both parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of his claim. (vii) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (viii) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: BHK