- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54265 WP No. 23433 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 23433 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SIJO SEBASTIAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. SRI. SEBASTIAN. P. K. R/O. B-406, UKN BELVISTA, HAGADUR MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE- 560 066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIJO SEBASTIAN., PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: EURO SCHOOL WHITEFIELD NO.36, 183, SEETHARAMAPALAYA-HOODI ROAD, BEHIND KPS YARD, NCPR INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, DODDANAKUNDI INDUSTRIAL AREA, SEETHARAMAPALYA, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560 048. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AJAY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LOMESH KIRAN N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE EX- PARTE ORDER PASSED IN O.S. NO. 5055/2024, ANNEXURE-AJ WHICH WAS ISSUED WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PETITIONER TO BE HEARD, THEREBY VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE., AND ETC. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54265 WP No. 23433 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard party-in-person Sri.Sijo Sebastian. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.5505/2024. He has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs: i. Set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Hon'ble CCH-31 XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore in O.S.No.5505/2024, dated 02-08-2024 (Annexure-AJ), which was issued without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, thereby violating the fundamental principle of natural justice. Also, to allow the petitioner to file the counter in the said I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.5505/2024 and to be heard on both sides before issuing any further orders in the said I.A. orders. ii. Pass such other order/s or direction/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54265 WP No. 23433 of 2024 3. It is the contention of party-in-person who is the defendant before the trial Court that he was not provided an opportunity to file the objections to the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and an ex-parte ad-interim order has been passed mechanically and he intends to file the objections. 4. It is also contended by the party-in-person that he has filed, IA No.2 for permission to file written statement along with written statement in 2 sets along with documents and the objections to the application by virtue of the very same objections/written statement. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner-defendant that he had filed an application in I.A.No.2 for permission to file the written statement, which is already on record and the same has to be considered by the trial Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner-defendant that as of now the prayer so made by him is to permit him to file the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54265 WP No. 23433 of 2024 objections and contest the matter and provide an opportunity of being heard on I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The facts are apparently clear, which is self-explanatory as per the trial Court order sheet, where it is stated, “Counsel for the defendant files memo and prays to adopt the written statement and objections to I.A.No.1.” Therefore, it is seen that the objections to I.A.No.1 is by virtue of the written statement that has already been filed by the defendant, which is on record. There need not be any further objections to be filed by the defendant before the trial Court, as he has already filed a memo to adopt the written statement and objections to I.A.No.1. 6. It is the grievance of the petitioner-defendant that he be heard and an opportunity be provided to him before passing the orders on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner-defendant requires to be accepted and is sustainable for the reasons that I.A.No.1, which is allowed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54265 WP No. 23433 of 2024 and ad interim ex parte order is passed in favour of the petitioner, requires to be heard an opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioner-defendant to address his arguments, as objections are already on record in the form of written statement, which he has filed a memo to adopt the written statement and objections to I.A.No.1. The trial Court shall hear the defendant and plaintiff and pass suitable orders on I.A.No.1 in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is disposed off; ii. The trial Court shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-defendant on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and also hear the plaintiff on the said application and pass suitable orders within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54265 WP No. 23433 of 2024 iii. The trial Court is at liberty to consider I.A.No.2 in accordance with law, of course, by hearing both the parties; iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the application. In view of disposal of this petition, pending application, if any, would pale into insignificance. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK,CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5