- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52037 CRP No. 577 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 577 OF 2025 (M) BETWEEN: SRI NAVEEN C S/O. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.173, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, NEAR VASAVI MAHAL, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JAYA MARY NAVEENA W/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2. MISS SNEHA D/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3. MISS PREETHI D/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.117, T.C. PALYA, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU -560 036 4. MR. ARUN KUMAR, S/O DEENA DAYA PILLAY, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52037 CRP No. 577 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C. PALYA, 2ND CROSS, NEAR ST. ANTHONY CHURCH, BANGALORE- 560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRISH N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2025 PASSED IN MISC.NO.24/2017 ON THE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-02) BENGALURU, CITY, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Satish K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Girish N., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed in Miscellaneous No.24/2017, dated 24.06.2025 whereby ex parte decree passed against the respondent stood set aside on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- and suit in O.S.No.224/2015 is restored to its original stage. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52037 CRP No. 577 of 2025 3. Sri Sathish K, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that after the death of the original vendor, a legal notice came to be issued by the petitioner to all the respondents who are the legal representatives of the original vendor namely, Jnanaprakash. Despite the service of legal notice, there was no compliance which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for specific enforcement of an agreement to sell entered into by Jnanaprakash in O.S.No.224/2015. 4. He would further contend that despite due service of summons in the said suit, the defendants did not appear before the Court. As such, the suit was decided ex parte. But, on false grounds defendants filed miscellaneous petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which has been allowed by the learned trial Judge in a casual manner by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- resulting in impairing the rights of petitioner and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 5. Per contra, Sri Girish N., learned counsel representing the respondents who are the legal representatives of Jnanaprakash, support the impugned order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52037 CRP No. 577 of 2025 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 7. On such perusal of the material on record, this Court finds some force in the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that the respondents were aware of the intended action in view of the fact that the plaintiff had issued legal notice. Further, despite the service of legal notice there was no reply nor compliance which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell in O.S.No.224/2015. 8. Suit summons is also served and the respondents did not appear before the Court for the reasons best known to them. But after the suit came to be decreed ex parte, they filed the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure in Miscellaneous Case No.24/2017. 9. Learned trial Judge recorded the evidence of the parties and after considering the rival contentions, he exercised his discretionary power under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the ex parte decree on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52037 CRP No. 577 of 2025 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that every suit must be decided on merits and no ex parte judgment should be allowed to continue in perpetuity unless exceptional circumstances are made out by a party that by challenging the ex parte decree, the other party is put to irreparable hardship and injury. 11. In the case on hand no such exceptional circumstances are found. However, the hardship that has been caused to the plaintiff cannot be lost sight of by virtue of the conduct attributable to the defendants. 12. Therefore, in order to compensate the hardship to plaintiff, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cost payable by the defendants to the plaintiff should be enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/- (inclusive of the cost of Rs.5,000/- already imposed by the trial Court). 13. Accordingly, the following : ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. (ii) While maintaining the order of setting aside ex parte decree, cost is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52037 CRP No. 577 of 2025 Rs.25,000/- (inclusive of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial Court) payable on or before 06.01.2026. (iii) Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 08.01.2026 without further direction or notice and proceed with the case. (iv) Payment/deposit of the costs on or before 06.01.2026 is a condition precedent for the restoration of the suit. (v) Taking note of the fact that the suit is already decreed and is of the year 2015 and filed for the purpose of specific enforcement of the agreement to sell, the suit shall be expedited by the trial Court. (vi) Needless to emphasize that parties shall co- operate for the same. (vii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR