- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51451 WP No. 35974 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 35974 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI R JAGADISH S/O LATE H.V RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A HOSAHALLI GOLLARAPALYA, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK- 560022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHAHNAWAZ M. MAMADAPUR., ADVOCATE) AND: LATE R SRINIVASA S/O LATE H.V RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.66, H.V.R LAYOUT, MAGADI ROAD, HOUSING BOARD, BANGALORE- 560079 SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY THEIR LRS 1. SMT. SATHYA KUMARI W/O LATE R. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A HOUSE NO.117, 1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN HVR LAYOUT, HOUSING BOARD, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 079 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51451 WP No. 35974 of 2025 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH AND/OR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.9.2025 IN (ANNEXURE-M) PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN O.S.NO.82/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, RAMANAGAR., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed on IA.No.5 in O.S.No.82/2024. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.82/2024 filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the original suit proceedings, an application came to be filed to implead the proposed respondent No.2 who is defendant No.2 filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, namely Smt. Satya Kumari. The notice on the said application was served to the said - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51451 WP No. 35974 of 2025 applicant, who was sought to be impleaded as defendant No.2. Thereafter, the application came to be allowed, permitting the impleadment of defendant No.2 as party in the suit proceedings. Accordingly, the plaintiff had arrayed defendant No.2 as a party to the suit proceedings, carried out the amendment and thereafter the trial Court ordered the issuance of notice to the defendant No.2 who is the respondent herein. 3. Since the defendant No.2 had not accepted regular service of notice and avoided the same, the plaintiff was compelled to file an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC by way of IA No. 5 seeking leave of the Court to take out notice by way of substitute service through newspaper publication in the Vijayavani Daily newspaper. Accordingly, the said publication was taken out against defendant No.2. The draft of the application was accepted by the Court and the publication was also ordered to be taken out by way of newspaper publication in the Vijayavani Kannada Daily newspaper and the date - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51451 WP No. 35974 of 2025 was fixed for publication of the notice on or before 08.09.2025 and the matter was to be called on 23.09.2025. The publication was taken out well within time. Thereafter the matter was listed before the Court for the appearance of defendant No.2 on 23.09.2025. When the matter was called on 23.09.2025, the trial Court passed the following order. "Defendant No.1 counsel is present and reported the death of defendant No.1. Plaintiff counsel is present and filed memo along with paper publication dated 25.08.2025 "Vijayavani kannada daily news paper. For appearance of defendant No.2. For steps by 15.12.2025." 4. In the said order, instead of accepting the notice to be sufficient, the trial Court ordered for appearance of the defendant No.2. This order is questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that once the newspaper publication is taken out under Order V Rule 20 read with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51451 WP No. 35974 of 2025 Section 151 of CPC and the appearance date is published in the said newspaper, if no representation is made by the said defendant, then the notice would have to be held sufficient. 5. It is contended that pursuant to the publication of the newspaper, the defendant No. 2 ought to have appeared on the said date so published in the newspaper i.e., 23.09.2025, and if no such appearance is made by the defendant No. 2 either in person or through a counsel, the said defendant would have to be placed ex-parte and proceed further. He relies on the provisions of Order IX Rule 6(1)(a), which reads as under. "6.Procedure when only plaintiff appears - (1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then- (a) When summons duly served- If it is proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit shall be heard ex parte." 6. It is needless to mention that once the paper publication is accepted by the Court, the draft of the paper - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51451 WP No. 35974 of 2025 publication is accepted and approved and ordered to be published, and the same is taken out by the plaintiff notifying the next date of hearing for appearance and on that date if the defendant No.2 in the present case having not appeared, the said notice of the publication through the newspaper is deemed to be held sufficient, as it is prudence that it is assumed that a person reads a newspaper and the same is legally accepted to be sufficient notice. 7. In the present case, instead of accepting the notice to be held to be sufficient, the trial Court has ordered for appearance of the defendant No.2 and has given another date which may not be the correct procedure to be followed in view of Order IX Rule 6(1)(a). More so for the reason that the learned trial judge has not specified or given any other reason for giving another date for appearance of defendant No.2. 8. This Court is impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that on an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51451 WP No. 35974 of 2025 earlier occasion, on an application filed by him for impleading the defendant No.2. On regular service of notice, the very same defendant No. 2 has made her appearance, engaged a counsel, and contested the matter and filed a statement of objections. Said application having been allowed, once again notice was ordered pursuant to the amendment having been carried out. Therefore, it clearly makes out that the defendant No. 2 is very well aware of the proceedings that are going on before the Court having participated earlier, and having not appeared, would be considered to be held sufficient. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is allowed. 2. The impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed on IA. No. 5 in OS No. 82/2024 is hereby set aside so far as giving another date for the appearance of defendant No.2 only. The other portion is not interfered. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51451 WP No. 35974 of 2025 3. Consequently, the service of notice to defendant No. 2 through newspaper publication in the Vijayavani Kannada Daily newspaper is held to be sufficient and deemed as served. 4. The trial Court shall proceed further in the matter, showing the appearance of defendant No.2 in the suit proceedings. 5. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17