- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32528 RSA No. 509 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPURA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT -562101 SHE IS REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI NAGESH S.M S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPURA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRCICT -562 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI MURALIDHARA.P FOR SRI SHIVANANDA S, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT MANNARPURA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT 562101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI LOURDU MARIYAPPA A, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32528 RSA No. 509 of 2021 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.12.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.185/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.10.2019 PASSED IN O.S.No.589/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKABALLAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Muralidhara P, appearing on behalf of Sri Shivananda S., counsel for the appellant and Sri Lourdru Mariyappa A., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present appeal is by the plaintiff, who succeeded in O.S.No.589/2012 and had the benefit of the decree of injunction against the defendant. Defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.185/2019. 3. Order sheet of the First Appellate Court discloses that the notice of the appeal was duly served on the respondent/plaintiff and Court having noted that there is a proper service, posted the case to 12.03.2020 for engaging the counsel. On 12.03.2020, neither the appellant was present, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32528 RSA No. 509 of 2021 nor the respondent engaged any counsel. Therefore, matter was posted for enquiry on the application seeking condonation of delay. 4. In the meantime, on account of spreading of COVID-19 pandemic, Courts were closed in views of lock down and after the Courts were reopened, after lifting up the nationwide lockdown, eight adjournments were granted by the First Appellate Court. But, the present appellant did not choose to participate in the matter. 5. On 05.11.2020, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court condoned the delay by allowing I.A.No.1 and posted the matter for arguments. On 11.11.2020, again the matter was adjourned to 30.11.2020. 6. On 30.11.2020, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court heard the arguments of the appellant/defendant and allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32528 RSA No. 509 of 2021 8. Counsel for appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that on account of spreading of COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff could not engage an Advocate of his choice and an opportunity may be provided to the plaintiff to contest the appeal filed by the defendant in R.A.No.185/2019 on merits and sought for allowing the appeal. 9. Per contra, Sri Lourdu Mariyappa, counsel for the respondent submits that sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant/plaintiff to appear before the First Appellate Court and when he failed to appear before the First Appellate Court, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court had to hear the arguments and allowed the appeal and therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record, including the order sheet of the First Appellate Court. 11. Admittedly, impugned judgment in R.A.No.185/2019 it is an exparte judgment inasmuch as the appellant/plaintiff did not choose to contest the appeal before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32528 RSA No. 509 of 2021 the Court by engaging a counsel, despite granting sufficient opportunity. 12. Reasons assigned by the appellant is that breakage of the pandemic COVID-19 and nationwide lockdown and after effects of such pandemic and the entire case came to be disposed of during the period of COVID-19. Therefore, an opportunity may be provided. 13. Taking note of the attendant circumstances and the prevailing social conditions at the relevant period of time, this Court is of the considered opinion that if appeal is allowed on directing the appellant to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent/defendant and remitting the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Regular Second Appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32528 RSA No. 509 of 2021 R.A.No.185/2019, which is an exparte judgment is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (iv) Parties shall appear before the First Appellate Court without further notice on 15.09.2025. (v) Appellant being the plaintiff in trial Court and respondent in First Appellate Court, shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- on or before 10.09.2025 to the defendant/respondent. (vi) It is made clear that payment/deposit of the cost of Rs.5,000/- on or before 10.09.2025 is a condition precedent for further the plaintiff participation of the appeal. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR