- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26238 RFA No. 145 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI HANUMANTHAIAH S/O. LATE. ANDANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 32, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NEAR M. E. S. SCHOOL, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI G GOVINDARAJU S/O. LATE. H. GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT. WARD NO.6, 2ND DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B M HALASWAMY.,ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.09.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.6508/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26238 RFA No. 145 of 2025 CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the defendant questioning the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2024, passed by the XLI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `the trial Court’), in O.S.No.6508/2019, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction came to decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction against the defendant claiming that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Survey No. No.37, measuring 0.01.1 gunta, situated at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26238 RFA No. 145 of 2025 Kamakshipalya, Saneguruvanahalli Docle, Bengaluru North Taluk, having purchased the same through a registered Sale Deed dated 02.02.1980, and that alleging interference by the defendant, the plaintiff had filed the suit for injunction. 4. In response to the suit summons served upon him, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement, by contending that the suit property was owned by one Chikkahuchaiah, son of Kalasappa, the grand-father of the defendant. After the demise of Chikkahuchaiah, his son Andanappa, the father of the defendant had acquired the suit property and during his life time, he had sold several sites on formation of layout in the said Survey No.37, by keeping a small bit of site. The father of the defendant - Andanappa had entered into an arrangement agreement with his eldest son A.Nagaraju. Subsequently, Nagaraju had leased the suit property in favour of oen H.S.Nanjundaiah under Lease Agreement dated 29.04.2005 for a period of 20 years. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26238 RFA No. 145 of 2025 As the lessee was dealing with scrap materials and the same was causing nuisance, the defendant along with his brothers, got vacated the lessee and thereafter, put the compound wall across the property. It is further contended that the property claimed by the plaintiff is altogether a different property. Thus, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: Issues 1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves illegal interference of defendant in the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for. 4. What order or decree? On the counter claim filed by the defendant, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26238 RFA No. 145 of 2025 Issues 1. Whether the counter claim plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the counter claim plaintiff further proves illegal interference of defendant in the suit property? 3. Whether the counter claim plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for? 4. What order or decree? 6. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-24. On behalf of the defendant, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. 7. The trial Court after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendant. Being aggrieved by the same the defendant has filed the present appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26238 RFA No. 145 of 2025 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that defendant had not cross-examined the plaintiff and also not adduced any evidence. Therefore, he has to be given one more opportunity and hence, prays to remand the matter to the trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that before the trial Court, the defendant was given sufficient opportunities, but he has not availed the same. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. After hearing learned counsel for both side, the following points arise for consideration : (i) Whether the matter requires to be remanded to the trial Court for giving an opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine PW-1 and to lead evidence? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26238 RFA No. 145 of 2025 12. Upon considering the records, it is seen that the plaintiff, who was examined as PW-1, was not cross- examined by the defendant and also the defendant has not led any evidence both oral or documentary. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is just and proper to give one more opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine PW-1 and to put forth his case by way evidence both oral and documentary. Thus, the matter requires to be remanded to the trial Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 02.09.2024, passed by the XLI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in O.S.No.6508/2019, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court. (iii) Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 22.06.2026 without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26238 RFA No. 145 of 2025 anticipating any notice or summons from the trial Court. (iv) From 22.06.2026, within two weeks, the defendant shall cross-examine PW-1 and after completion of the cross-examination, the defendant shall commence his evidence within a period of three weeks. (v) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date 22.06.2026. (vi) The parties shall co-operate for disposal of the suit, without taking unnecessary adjournments. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56