- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14527 WP No. 107964 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 107964 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SANGAPPA S/O BALAPPA GAVAROJI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. WARD NO.8, ANAND NAGAR, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 201. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: RAMESH S/O IRAPPA ANGADI, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. F-12 BRINDAVAN COMPLEX, VIVEKANAND ROAD, TUMAKURU, DIST. TUMAKURU-572 101. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MUDHOL CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS NO.19/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14527 WP No. 107964 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 28.07.2025 wherein Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code’, for short) application filed in Civil Miscellaneous No.19/2019 by the contesting respondent of this petition is allowed and ex-parte decree is set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a delay of 8 months 25 days in filing the Order IX Rule 13 application and the decree holder/respondent in the Miscellaneous Petition before the Trial Court opposed the application for condonation of delay and only the application for condonation of delay was heard. However by condoning the delay, though there is no sufficient cause shown, the Trial Court also allowed Order IX Rule 13 application and set aside the ex- parte decree. It is his submission that order violates principles of natural justice as Order IX Rule 13 application was not heard on merit at all. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14527 WP No. 107964 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that while hearing the application for condonation of delay in filing Order IX Rule 13 application, the application for condonation of delay and as well as the Order IX Rule 13 applications were heard on merits and only after noticing the fact that the sufficient grounds are made out to condone the delay and to set aside ex-parte decree, the impugned order is passed. 5. This Court has perused the records and it is noticed that there was a delay in filing the Order IX Rule 13 application. The examination-in-chief marked at Annexure-D would reveal that evidence is led on the application for condonation of delay. No evidence is led on main petition under Order IX Rule 13. 6. This being the position, this Court is of the view that there is a procedural error in setting aside the ex-parte decree. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that delay is not properly explained and there is total variation in the contentions raised and evidence led, considering the fact that the suit is one for specific performance of the contract, the Court is of the view that a liberal approach should be taken to condone the delay of 8 months 25 days. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14527 WP No. 107964 of 2025 7. However, it is to be noticed that because of default on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff has been put to inconvenience. He has already filed execution petition and execution is closed. The respondent shall pay a cost of ₹7,500/- to the petitioner. The cost shall be paid by next date of hearing before the Trial Court. 8. The order condoning the delay of 8 months 25 days is confirmed. However, the order setting aside the ex-parte decree is set aside. 9. Order IX Rule 13 petition shall be heard on its merit without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court as this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of Order IX Rule 13 application. 10. The party shall appear before the Trial Court on 17.11.2025 without further notice from the Trial Court. 11. Writ petition is allowed in part. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK_CT:BCK