- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46053 RFA No. 919 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.919 OF 2021 (MON) BETWEEN: MRS.RACHNA SHARMA W/O DINESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT VILLAGE TOP KI BER, P O DEOTHI, TEH AND DISTT SOLAN 173211, HIMACHAL PRADESH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H R SANTHOSH AND SRI. POORNA CHANDRA B., ADVOCATES) AND: MR PAVAN KUMAR GAUR S/O KAILASHCHANDRA GAUR, AGE: 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.53/96-D, 40TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 041. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SAGAR G. NAHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.03.2018 PASSED IN O.S.No.1367/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 55TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46053 RFA No. 919 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.1367/2017 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2018 passed by the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff against the appellant-defendant for recovery of money restraining her from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent-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 respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery of money in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The appellant-defendant entered appearance but did not contest the suit, pursuant to which, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of relief as sought in the plaint? - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46053 RFA No. 919 of 2021 (ii) What decree or order? 4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. However, the appellant-defendant did not cross- examine PW-1 nor adduced 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 she had entered appearance through her counsel. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant-defendant to contest the suit after commencement of evidence of the respondent - plaintiff 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. 5. 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46053 RFA No. 919 of 2021 6. 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? 7. 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 evidence of PW-1 remained un-rebutted and that the appellant - defendant did not adduce any defence evidence and 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 her inability and omission to cross-examine PW-1 and 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 appellant - defendant, 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46053 RFA No. 919 of 2021 8. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2018 passed in O.S.No.1367/2017 by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Parties are to directed to appear before the Trial Court on 08.12.2025 without awaiting further notice. (v) The appellant-defendant is directed to file written statement before the Trial Court on 08.12.2025 without seeking adjournment under any circumstance whatsoever and also cross- examine PW-1 on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court . (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. (vii) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (viii) The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit on or before end of Summer Vacation, 2026. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46053 RFA No. 919 of 2021 (ix) The amount deposited by the appellant before this Court is directed to be transferred to the Trial Court, which would be subject to final outcome of the suit. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48