- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7179 WP No. 1435 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1435 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ARAVINDA SHENOY S/O LATE A. RAMANANDA SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 2. SRI. ASHWIN SHENOY S/O LATE A. RAMANANDA SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.266/1, G.K. LANE, SALMARA, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LOKESH S. G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI DAYANANDA PRABHU S/O LATE VENKATRAYA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT “WELCOME HOTEL”, NEAR BUS STAND, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104. 2. SRI. DR. VIDYANANDA PRABHU S/O LATE VENKATRAYA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT 603, LEELADURGA, NEW LINK ROAD, NEAR DON BASCO SCHOOL, OZIRANKA, BORIVILLI (WEST) MUMBAI – 400 091. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7179 WP No. 1435 of 2026 3. SRI. NITHYANANDA PRABHU S/O LATE VENKATRAYA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT B-5, 3RD FLOOR, JNANESHWARI BUILDING, VITOBHA TEMPLE ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 001. 4. SMT. PRABHAVATHI @ SULOCHANA PRABHU D/O LATE VENKATRAYA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT B-5, 2ND FLOOR, JNANESHWARI BUILDING. VITOBHA TEMPLE ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 001. 5. MRS. YOGINI SUBRAYA NAYAK W/O SUBRAYA MUKUNDA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.401, ANAM BUILDING, OPP. DAMODHARA MEIDICAL STORES, BABAI, LOKAMANYA TILAK ROAD, BORIVILI(WEST), MUMBAI-400 091. 6. SMT. JAYALAXMI SADANANDA NAYAK, W/O SADANANDA MUKUNDA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, C/O YOGINI SUBRAYA NAYAK, RESIDING AT NO.401, GORAI MANGALAMURTHI BUILDING, D’ WING, LOKAMANYA TILAK ROAD, BORIVILI(WEST), MUMBAI – 400 091. 7. SMT. ARCHANA SATHISH SHENOY W/O SATHISH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT 201, JAYESH BUILDING, NEW LINK ROAD, NEAR DON BASCO SCHOOL, OZIRANKA, BORIVILLI (WEST) MUMBAI – 400 091. 8. SMT. KIRAN MUKESH PRABHU W/O MUKESH PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7179 WP No. 1435 of 2026 RESIDING AT 305, BUILDING NO. 52, MAHARASTRA HOUSING BOARD, GANESH NAGAR, KANDIVILLI (WEST) MUMBAI – 400 067. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 17.11.2025 PASSED BY HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA IN R.A.NO. 2/2019 VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the legal representatives of respondent No.1(a) and respondent No.1(b) in R.A.No.2/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, whereby the cross objections filed by the 3rd respondent who was 3rd defendant were taken/received on record by the first appellate court by holding as under; “ORDERS This order came to be pronounced as the 3rd respondent filed cross objections to the above appeal and objections were raised by the 2nd respondent to receive the cross-objections of the 3rd respondent. 2. The respondent No.2 submits that the cross- objection has to be filed within the period of limitation and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7179 WP No. 1435 of 2026 Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has permitted the petitioner to contest the appeal in accordance with the law. That the law does not permit to file cross-objections after the period of one month from the date of service of notice and hence sought for rejection of the same. 3. Heard from counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. 4. The following point arise for my determination. “Whether the cross-objections filed by the 3rd respondent is to be taken on record?” 5. My answer to the above point is in ‘affirmative’, for the following REASONS 6. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of Principal civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Karkala, in O.S.No.59/2011 dated 27-11-2018. It would be pertinent to note that this 3rd respondent who was 3rd defendant in the original suit, failed to file the written statement in time. However the trial court rejected the written statement, against which order, writ was preferred and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has permitted this 3rd respondent to file the written statement and contest the case. However the trial court passed the judgment within a short span of time , before passing of the orders by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Now, the cross-objections is filed by the counsel for the 3rd respondent on 11-07-2022. Thus the counsel for the 2nd respondent, who was the plaintiff in the above suit, had objected for considering the cross-objections by the 3rd respondent. Thus objection was raised, while this court was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7179 WP No. 1435 of 2026 proceeding to hear the arguments, since there was an order by my learned predecessor to consider the objections at the time of main arguments. 7. As per the 3rd respondent, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has permitted the 3rd respondent to proceed as per law and contest the case as per law. Further urges that the cross-objection is barred by limitation and is filed after a gap of one month from the date of service of notice. Also relied upon the following authorities in 1) Smt. Sannamma and others Vs. Jayasheelamma in M.S.A. No.11/2018 dated 11-01- 2024 2) Jagat Narayan Vs., Smt. Tarkeshi in M.A. No.1556/2010 dated 01-08-2019 where the procedure relating to filing of the cross-objection has been explained in detail. As per the said authorities, cross-objections are to be filed within a period of limitation and the Hon’ble High Court of 4 RA 2-2019 Karnataka has dismissed the cross-objections filed by the claimant as it is barred by time and without making payment of court fee. Further the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has also explained the procedure as to filing of the cross-objections , where it is held that “ Whenever cross-objections are fled, it must be in a regular format as applicable while preferring appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. and necessary court fee has to be paid on the cross-objection.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7179 WP No. 1435 of 2026 It was also brought out to the notice of this court that the 2nd respondent has not paid the proper court fee and cross objection is not in a format. 8. As against this contention, the counsel for the 2nd respondent has relied upon the authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 2439 in ‘Mahadev Govind Gharge and others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Office, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, along with another appeal in Special Land Acquisition Office, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka Vs. Mahadev Govind Gharge and others, wherein it is held that “Expiry of period of limitation for filing the cross-objections – Right to file cross-objection is not extinguished - Court in its discretion can permit party to file cross-objection even after expiry of limitation period of one month.” 9. Considering the law of the precedents of the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be aptly applicable to the instant case. Therefore, from the above authority, this court is of the considered opinion that permitting to file cross-objection and considering the same is at the discretion of the court. However there should be proper reasons made out by the 3rd respondent , which has to be considered. 10. A perusal of the ordersheet goes to show that the respondent No.3 was not served with the appeal notice itself. However the 3rd respondent appeared through the counsel and filed I.A., under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C., to consider his presence and set aside the order placing him exparte. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7179 WP No. 1435 of 2026 Respondent No.2 submitted that he was suffering from brain hemorrhage, diabetes and other related issues and underwent bypass surgery, where he was advised to take bedrest. 11. Considering all the facts, my learned predecessor has permitted the 3rd respondent to contest the case vide order dated 05-10-2021. The 3rd respondent also submitted that he has preferred writ petition in W.P.No.19307/2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka , where the matter was stayed and extended, and the Hon’ble High Court permitted the 3rd respondent to file written statement along with cost of Rs.5,000/-, which order was received by this court on 02-06-2022. Therefore , finally after all the procedure, the 3rd respondent filed the cross-objection on 11-07-2022. Therefore the reasons that the 3rd respondent was suffering from ailment and considering the stay order by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka , relying upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court is of the considered opinion that the cross-objection filed by the 3rd respondent is to be taken on record. 12. Further the counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the cross-objection can be filed only against the appellant and not against the co-respondent. Also has relied upon the authority reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 564 in ‘Mahant Dhangir and another Vs. Shri Madan Mohan and others’,, where it is held that cross-objection could be urged against the appellant only . But the counsel for the 3rd respondent also relied upon the same authority, where it is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7179 WP No. 1435 of 2026 further held that “by way of exception to this general rule, where the respondent may urge, objection as against other respondent and has explained the exceptional cases for considering the same.” 13. As stated above this appeal is against the decree passed by the trial court, where the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the respondents/defendants were directed to handover the possession of the property to the plaintiff. This 3rd respondent was also affected party being the 3rd defendant. Therefore, in the instant situation, the appeal was preferred by the 1st defendant/appellant against the plaintiff/1st respondent, where appellant and 3rd respondent stands on the same footage. Therefore, the cross-objection has to be against the plaintiff only, which is against the person holding the decree in his favour. Therefore this is also one of the exceptional case, where the 3rd respondent has joined with the appellant , is seeking cross-objections against the plaintiff / 1st respondent in the instant case. Therefore the authorities relied upon by the counsel for the 2nd respondent is absolutely applicable to the instant case and this court has to consider that this is one of the exceptional case , as explained in the above said authority. Accordingly holding that the cross-objection filed by the 3rd respondent against the 1st respondent is absolutely maintainable and the same is to be taken on record, the above point is answered in affirmative. 14. In view of the above said reasonings, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7179 WP No. 1435 of 2026 ORDER Cross-objection of 3rd respondent is taken on record.” 2. Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the first appellate court, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse nor the same said to have occasioned any prejudice or failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 3. Accordingly, petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. The petitioner is permitted to urge all contentions in the appeal including the contention regarding limitation, court fee etc., which shall be decided by the first appellate court in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SRL