- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1737 CRP No. 100168 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100168 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. SHEKAR HIREHALMATH, AGE. 51 YEARS, R/AT. NO.284, OPP APMC, ESHWARNAGAR, BHAIRIDEVARAKOPPA HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH P. HANAMARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. JAYAPRAKASH UPPIN S/O. BASAVARAJ UPPIN, AGE. 44 YEARS, R/AT. HALIYAL VILLAGE, HALIYALA HOBLI, HALIYAL TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581329. …RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.09.2024 PASSED IN MISC NO.18 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI, AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.01 11:43:00 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1737 CRP No. 100168 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, challenging the order dated 26.09.2024 passed in Misc.No.18 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil and JMFC, Hubballi, (Annexure-A) allowing the petition. 2. For the sake the convenience parties are refereed to as per their status and ranking in OS No.120 of 2019. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are that, the plaintiff- Smt. Rajeshwari has filed suit in OS No.120 of 2019 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, seeking recovery of Rs.12,31,000/- with interest. The defendants have not chosen to contest the suit and accordingly, placed ex- parte before the Trial Cour. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1737 CRP No. 100168 of 2024 07.11.2019 decreed the suit and directed the defendants to pay Rs. 12,31,000/- with future interest at 18% per annum to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.3 has preferred Misc.No.18 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, seeks to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.11.2019 in OS No.120 of 2019. The said proceeding was contested by the plaintiff. The Civil Court after considering the material on record allowed the petition and set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2019 in OS No.120 of 2019 and as such, restored the suit to its original file. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff herein has filed this revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1737 CRP No. 100168 of 2024 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, though the notice was served to the respondents herein, however, they have deliberately avoided to appear before the Trial Court and the said aspect has to be considered as no acceptable reasons has been given by the Trial Court on the conduct of the respondents and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the suit in OS No.120 of 2019 was decreed and the defendants were placed ex- parte. Upon the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, in Misc.No.18 of 2020, the Trial Court has allowed the petition and as such, restored the suit to its original position and imposed cost. In that view of the matter since the suit is one for recovery of money, and taking into consideration the reasons assigned by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1737 CRP No. 100168 of 2024 the Trial Court in the impugned order in Misc.No.18 of 2020 as per paragraph 9.02, I am of the opinion that, no interference is called for in this petition. It is also well established principle in law that, to achieve the ends of justice a fair opportunity be extended to the parties. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34