- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53321 RFA No. 1007 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1007 OF 2024 (INJ-) BETWEEN: MS. VELLIYAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, GHOUSIA STREET, AKKITAMMANAHALLI SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER AND DAUGHTER, N.HEMAVATHI W/O B.V. KUMARESH, IN TERMS OF THE GPA DATED 03-02-2024 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. C. RAJEEVA, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. B. S. SUNIL S/O B. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1028/1, 25TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHANU PRASAD K., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5195/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53321 RFA No. 1007 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendants in O.S.No.5195/2018 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.08.2023 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, whereby the said suit filed by the plaintiff against the appellant-defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff against the appellant - defendant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The appellant-defendant entered appearance and filed her written - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53321 RFA No. 1007 of 2024 statement, pursuant to which, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of this suit? (ii) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendant over the suit schedule property? (iii) Whether the defendant proves that acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.26/1 measuring 1 acres 23 gunta (including suit schedule property) has been quashed by Hon’ble Courts? (iv) Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the absence of declaration of title? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for reliefs as prayed for? (vi) What order or decree?” 4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P52 were marked. However, the appellant - defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of her defence. In this context, it is the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that the Trial Court has refused to permit the defendant’s advocate to come on record on a spurious ground that NOC of the previous advocate was not obtained and as such, the appellant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53321 RFA No. 1007 of 2024 was not in a position to file adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of her defence. 5. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant-defendant to contest the suit was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and it is therefore necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. Per contra, it is contented by the respondent that despite granting sufficient opportunity, the appellant-defendant did not exercise due diligence in contesting the suit and as such, the trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53321 RFA No. 1007 of 2024 8. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the trial court has taken into account the fact that the oral and documentary evidence of PW-1 remained un-rebutted as the appellants - defendants did not adduce any defence evidence and therefore, proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that their inability and omission to adduce defence evidence was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellants - defendants, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions. 9. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 05.08.2023 passed in O.S.No.5195/2018 by the trial court is hereby set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53321 RFA No. 1007 of 2024 (iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 02.02.2026 without awaiting further notice. (v) The appellant is permitted to implead the following persons as additional defendants to the suit: 1) Balakrishna J. 2) Srinivas A. 3) S.T.Siddalingappa 4) Vemi Reddy Sujay Krishna 5) Padidam Koteswara Rao 6) Padidam Mamatha 7) Mamidi Srinivasalu 8) Pabolu Venkata Sateesh Babu 9) Kurapati Venu Madhava 10) Kurapati Venkata Sri Ram Murthy 11) Ganesham Venkata Narayana Reddy (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. (vii) The Trial Court is directed to issue notice to additional defendants and proceed further in accordance with law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53321 RFA No. 1007 of 2024 (viii) Since the suit is of the year 2018, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. (ix) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. In view of disposal of the appeal, interim applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby dismissed. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47