- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32035 RSA No. 1343 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2024 (POS) BETWEEN: SHIVANANDA V ANVEKAR S/O VITOBA SHET, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCU: OWNER OF AISHWARA JEWELLERS, R/AT ASHOKA ROAD, SAGARA TOWN - 577 401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ONKARA S/O MAHADEVA G. PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT ASHOKA ROAD, SAGARA TOWN - 577 401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 2. MAHADEVA G. PAWAR S/O GOVINDA PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT ASHOKA ROAD, SARAGA TOWN - 577 401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2024 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32035 RSA No. 1343 of 2024 PASSED IN RA.NO.22/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, SAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7/2012 (OLD OS NO. 274/2012) ON THE FILE OF THE C/C ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, SAGAR. 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.Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Mahesh R. Uppin, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Appellant is the defendant who has suffered a decree of possession in O.S.No.274/2012 (old) O.S.No.7/2012 (new). 3. Operative portion of the decree of the Trial Court reads as under: “Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost. The defendant is hereby directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and to pay arrears of rent till 31-10-2012 of Rs. 1,47,974/- and Rs. 1,000/- as notice charge and litigation - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32035 RSA No. 1343 of 2024 expenses of Rs. 10,000/- within 3 months from the date of this order. If the defendant failed to vacate and handover the suit premises and pay the arrears of rent as stated supra, within stipulated period as mentioned above. then the plaintiff is at liberty to invoke his right through the process of court at the cost of the defendant. Draw decree accordingly.” 4. Suit property is described hereunder: ±ÉqÀÆåˉï ¸ÁUÀgÀ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ªÁqïð £ÀA:14/3 C±ÉÆÃPÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£À C¸É¸ÉÌAmï £ÀA: 292-292-263 PÉÌ M¦àzÀ Dgï.¹.¹ PÀlÖqÀzÀ°è ¥ÀǪÀð ¢QÌ£À ªÉÆzÀ®£É ªÀĽUÉ «¹ÛÃtð 12.6/13 Cr EzÀPÉÌ UÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀð:- C±ÉÆÃPÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ :- EzÉà ¸ÀAQÃtðzÀ 2 £Éà ªÀĽUÉ GvÀÛgÀ :- ¨sÀªÁ¤ UÁªÉÄAðmïì UÉÆÃqÉ zÀQët :- NqÁqÀĪÀ NtÂ. 5. Plaintiff being the owner of the suit property filed the suit for possession against the defendant who is the appellant before this Court and on due contest, suit came to be decreed as aforesaid. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32035 RSA No. 1343 of 2024 6. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.22/2021. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, reappreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the factual aspects of the matter and following the dictum of this Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. Bhagvandas Patel reported in ILR 2017 KAR 1319, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant is before this Court, in this appeal on following grounds and raising substantial questions of law: GROUNDS It is submitted that rightly the Appellant had filed I.a. No.8 and 9 for seeking permission of the Hon'ble court below in O.S. No.7/2012 for seeking permission re-open the case and cross examination - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32035 RSA No. 1343 of 2024 of Respondents (Plaintiff) the Hon'ble court below rejecting the I.A. No.8 and 9 on the ground that more than sufficient time was granted to the appellant to lead evidence and cross examination of the Respondents (Plaintiff) but the Appellant failed to utilize the time granted by the Court below on that short ground the suit was decreed directing the Appellant to hand over the possession of the schedule property and to pay rental amount due, since being aggrieved by the Appellant filed appeal No.22/2021 for challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.s. No.7/2012 dated 27-09- 2021, but the appellant court dismissed the appeal of the appellant without assigning proper legal cogent reasons. Only endorses the judgement and decree of the court and no interference confirming the judgment and decree of the court below. Hence, the appellant is knocking the doors of this Hon'ble court for challenging both the Judgment and decree in O.S. No. 7/2012 R.A. No. 22/2021 respectively. Therefore, in any angle viewed the judgment and decree of both the courts below are null and void in entirety to be set aside and remand back for fresh consideration to the Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, at Sagara for reconsideration of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32035 RSA No. 1343 of 2024 judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 7/2012 (Old O.S. No. 274/2012). SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW i. Whether both the courts below are justified not giving sufficient time to the Appellant (Defendant) for cross examination of the Respondents (Plaintiff) in O.S.No.7/2012 is it justifiable? ii. Whether both the courts below are justified despite I.A. No.8 and 9 filed by the Appellant for seeking leave of the court for cross examination in the light of 'Covid-19' pandemic virus both the Courts below are justified in rejecting the I.A. No.8 and 9 is it correct? iii. Whether both the Courts below have not assigned cogent reasons expressing the bonafidness of the Respondents requirement of the rented premises for use of the Respondents without considering the grievance of the Appellant are justified? 9. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that respondents did not permit the appellant to carry out the business in the suit property properly as they made the suit property in a dilapidated condition and as such, defendant had to close down the shop for more than two - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32035 RSA No. 1343 of 2024 years and sought for admitting the appeal on aforesaid substantial questions of law. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned judgments. 11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that respondents are the owners of the property and they have filed the suit for possession. There was a determination of Rs.1,47,974/- which is the arrears of rent till 31.10.2012. 13. Same is said to have been cleared by the appellant to respondents. 14. Learned Trial Judge noticing the fact that there was no defence at all for the defendant, by considered judgment, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32035 RSA No. 1343 of 2024 15. Before the First Appellate Court, learned counsel for the defendant noted that despite granting sufficient time, defendant failed to cross-examine P.W.1 and also noted that there is no defence whatsoever available to the defendant, upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 16. On factual aspects, both the Courts have recorded a categorical finding that defendant failed to adhere to the terms of the lease and therefore, determination of the lease is just and proper and decreed the suit for possession. 17. In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum do not merit for further consideration: 18. Accordingly, the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32035 RSA No. 1343 of 2024 ORDER i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. However, time is extended till 31.08.2025 to vacate and hand over the suit property to plaintiffs/respondents. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83 CT: BHK