- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18078 WP No. 109631 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEDGE WRIT PETITION NO. 109631 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B. RAMESH KUMAR S/O. B. BASAPPA, AGE. 58 YEARS, R/O. PUNYANANDAPUR NAGAR, 35TH WARD, NEAR AAKASHAVANI, HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR – 560040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARANAPPA KOLIAWD, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RAJESHWARI N. REDDY W/O. NARASAREDDY, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HOSALINGAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL – 583231. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2025 IN CIVIL MISC.NO.4/2025 AS VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND CONFIRM THE DECREE DATED 23.10.2024 IN O.S.NO.68/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO RESTORE AND PERMIT EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS IN EP NO.9/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2025.12.16 11:21:24 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18078 WP No. 109631 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Civil Misc.No.4/2025 filed under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In terms of the impugned order, the decree dated 23.10.2024 passed in O.S.No.68/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Koppal, is set aside. 2. There was a delay of 118 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The petition is allowed on payment of cost of ₹5,000/-. The Trial Court has noticed that the defendant in the suit did not participate in the proceedings as she was not keeping well. 3. The contention is supported by medical evidence. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this petition, has not laid rebuttal evidence. 4. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defendant participated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18078 WP No. 109631 of 2025 in the proceedings by engaging an advocate but did not file written statement, and the execution proceeding is also closed by executing the decree in favour of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that the petition to set aside the ex- parte decree does not become infructuous merely because the execution petition is closed, as the execution petition was closed when the miscellaneous petition was pending. 5. Under the circumstances, the order of the Court permitting the respondent to contest the suit cannot be said to be erroneous. 6. Hence, the following: i. The petition is dismissed. ii. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, petitioner is restrained from alienating the property and creating any third-party rights over the property based on the sale deed. The sale deed shall not be formally cancelled merely because the decree is set aside. The property shall stand in the name of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18078 WP No. 109631 of 2025 petitioner. The entry in the record of rights as of now shall be maintained till the disposal of the suit. iii. Merely because the sale deed is allowed to be registered in the name of the plaintiff, it does not mean that the Court has reflected anything on the claim of the plaintiff over the property in question. The suit has to be decided on its merits based on the evidence to be laid before the trial Court. iv. Since these observations are made without notice to the respondent, respondent is at liberty to move necessary application before this Court for clarification/modification of the order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE gab CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29