- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53400 RFA No. 2496 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2496 OF 2025 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: MOHAN V S/O LATE VADIVELU V AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.3605/A, 3RD CROSS, B BLOCK, GAYATHRI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 021. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATESH NAIDU N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANOHAR V @ ASHOKANANDHA. V. S/O LATE V. VADIVELU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, II MAIN ROAD, 5TH B CROSS, K.P. AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023. 2. KUM. ANITHA DEVI. V. D/O LATE VADIVELU V AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 131, III B CROSS, NEAR SBI BANK, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE. 3. SRI. MANJUNATH V S/O LATE VADIVELU V AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, K.K. LANE, 10TH CROSS, COTTONPET, BANGALORE - 560 053. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53400 RFA No. 2496 of 2025 4. M/S. KARNATAKA PROVISION STORES NO.36/1, COTTONPET MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 053. 5. M/S. M.S. MART, NO.483, OTC ROAD, COTTONPET, BANGALORE - 560 053. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NATARAJ G.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2025, NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.08.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.5940/2020 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the 1st defendant O.S.No.5940/2020 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.08.2025 passed by the XXIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the 1st respondent- plaintiff against the appellant – 1st defendant and remaining defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53400 RFA No. 2496 of 2025 alleged share in the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for 1st respondent-caveator and perused the material on record. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective rankings before the trial court. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule immovable property and other reliefs. After service of suit summons, defendants 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed their separate written statement and contested the suit but defendants 4 and 5 did not appear before the trial court and they have placed ex-parte. Pursuant to which, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1) Whether plaintiff proves that suit properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3? 2) Whether plaintiff further proves that he is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule property? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53400 RFA No. 2496 of 2025 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Mesne Profits? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as sought for? 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought? 6) What order or decree? 5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P9. The defendant No.2 examined himself as DW-1 but did not produce any documentary evidence. As stated supra, defendants 1 to 3 have filed their separate written statements and the appellant – 1st defendant cross-examined PW-1 partly and did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. In this context, it is the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that his inability and omission to contest the suit was due to bonafide reason, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and it is therefore necessary to provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to contest the suit on merits by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53400 RFA No. 2496 of 2025 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 appellant – 1st defendant has partly cross-examined PW-1, whose evidence remained unchallenged, unimpeached and uncontroverted by the appellant coupled with the fact that the 1st defendant did not adduce any defence evidence and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellant - 1st defendant that his 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 – 1st defendant, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53400 RFA No. 2496 of 2025 remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions. 8. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 06.08.2025 passed in O.S.No.5940/2020 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 directed to appear before the trial court on 02.02.2026 without awaiting further notice from the trial court. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the 1st defendant to file her written statement, objections, documents etc., before the trial court which shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. (vii) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53400 RFA No. 2496 of 2025 (viii) The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from 02.02.2026. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK/SRL