- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53434 RFA No. 2543 of 2025 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. 2543 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGALINGA W/O LATE SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT: NAGARESWARA, NAGENAHALLI DINNE, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 077. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LAKSHMI W/O SRI. DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT S-1, M.R. BUILDING, NEAR VEERABHDRA SWAMY TEMPLE, KOTHANURU, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 077. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURALI S., ADVOCATE) *** THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6297/2019 ON THE FILE OF XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53434 RFA No. 2543 of 2025 BENGALURU (CCH-36), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.6297/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.08.2025 passed by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to 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 plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. Upon service of notice, the appellant-defendant entered - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53434 RFA No. 2543 of 2025 appearance through her Advocate and filed her written statement, denying the case of the plaintiff, pursuant to which, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiff proves her possession over suit property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether plaintiff proves the actual interference caused by the defendant prior to filing of the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction? 4. What order or decree? 4. The plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and Exs.P-1 to P-19(c) were got marked. The defendant examined herself as DW-1 and got marked Exhibits D-1 to D-3. In the Written Statement, the defendant took a contention that her grandmother Venkatamma W/o. Hosamuniyappa is the owner and possessor of Sy.No.47 of Kothanur village, K.R. Puram Hobli which was totally measuring 02 acres. It was further contended by the defendant that the family members of defendant have not sold any portion out of 2 acres in Sy.No.47 and that the suit property is totally different property and it is far away from the property of the defendant. Further, the defendant contended that the plaintiff is illegally claiming her right on the property and she has no right, title or - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53434 RFA No. 2543 of 2025 interest over the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. 4.1. PW-1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for defendant. Subsequently, the defendant filed her evidence affidavit, which was treated as Chief examination of DW-1. When the case was posted for cross-examination, the defendant remained absent and evidence of defendant was taken as 'closed'. Taking the written arguments of the plaintiff and the arguments of the defendant as 'heard', the Trial Court proceeded to answer all the issues framed by it in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. 5. It is contented by the learned counsel for appellant/defendant that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant/defendant to contest the suit when it was posted for cross-examination, 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53434 RFA No. 2543 of 2025 back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. 6. Per contra, it is contented by the respondent/plaintiff 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? 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 defendant remained absent when the case for posted for cross-examination and thus took the evidence of the defendant as closed and accordingly, 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/defendant that her inability and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53434 RFA No. 2543 of 2025 omission to be present when the matter was taken for cross- examination 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. 9. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.08.2025 passed in O.S.No.6297/2019 by the learned XXXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36) is hereby set aside. (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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53434 RFA No. 2543 of 2025 (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. (vii) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the parties to file interlocutory applications, which shall be considered in accordance with law. (viii) Since the suit is of the year 2019, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. (ix) All rival contentions of both the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15/CT: BHK