- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32196 RSA No. 469 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.469 OF 2022 (SP) BETWEEN: SYNERGY ONE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECT PVT. LTD., NO.18/2, SYNERGY ONE HOUSE OPP. KENDRIYA VIHAR, NH-7 AIRPORT ROAD, VENKATALA BENGALURU – 560 064 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.NAGARAJAPPA B …APPELLANT (BY SRI MAHESH.B.J FOR SRI K.S.KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SUNIL NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O N.K.NARAYAN NO.263, 4TH MAIN, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 085. 2. RAVICHANDRA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SUGUVANAM NO.22, 3RD CROSS, 1ST STAGE, AECS LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560024. 3. RAVI PURVANKARA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O K.PURVANKARA Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32196 RSA No. 469 of 2022 NO.130/1, HALASURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042 4. M/S. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LTD HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.227, S.V.ROAD, BANDRA WEST MUMBAI-400 050 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.130/1, HALASURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560042 REPTD. BY ITS DIRECTOR NANI R CHOKSEY 5. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS, S/O LATE PANNANGAPPA, 6. PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, 7. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, 8. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, 9. RAVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, 10. SHIVAMMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, D/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, 11. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32196 RSA No. 469 of 2022 SL.Nos.5 TO 11 ARE RESIDING OF UGANWADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 132. 12. M.THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O G.MUNIYAPPA BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDASANNE POST, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK -562 132 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 13. V.M.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT YEARS S/O NYATHAPPA UGANWADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 132. 14. M.L.MAHESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LACCHAIAH SHETTY NO.16/2, M.N.KRISHNA RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2021 PASSED ON APPLICATION IN R.A.No.15015/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT DEVANAHALLI REJECTING THE APPLICATION AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2018 PASSED IN OLD O.S.No.344/2005 NEW O.S.No.686/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DEVANAHALLI. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32196 RSA No. 469 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Mahesh B.J. advocate for Sri K.S.Kalleshappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Advocate for Sri Joseph Anthony, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. The present appeal is filed by the applicant who filed an application seeking leave to challenge the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.344/2005 which was renumbered as O.S No.686/2006, in R.A No.15015/2020. 3. A preliminary objection was taken in respect of said application seeking leave to file the appeal by the applicant should be granted or not. 4. On the said application, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court heard the parties and by the Order dated 15.12.2021 rejected the application seeking leave. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32196 RSA No. 469 of 2022 5. Correctness of the said order is assailed in the present Second Appeal. 6. Sri. Mahesh B.J., learned counsel representing Sri K.S.Kalleshappa, learned counsel representing the appellant would contend that validity of the judgment that has been passed in suit was to be adjudicated after granting the leave to the applicant. 7. At the threshold rejecting the application seeking leave to file the appeal, has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 8. He would further emphasize that the applicant’s name got changed from ‘NSB Infrastructure and Projects Private Limited’ to ‘Synergy One Infrastructure and Project Private Limited’. Therefore, application is rejected. Learned Judge failed to note that the applicant who was the appellant before the First Appellate Court was not a different entity and name of the applicant alone got changed. Therefore, matter needs to be remitted to the First Appellate Court by granting the leave and appeal to be adjudicated on merits, wherein all objections of the contesting respondent can be considered on merits. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32196 RSA No. 469 of 2022 9. Per contra, Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent would contend that change in the name of ‘NSB Infrastructure and Projects Private Limited’ to ‘Synergy One Infrastructure and Project Private Limited’ is not the sole criteria on which the leave is being rejected. 10. There are other aspects of the matter which are to be adjudicated even on the question of grant of leave alone. Therefore, application cannot be allowed by this Court without such enquiry or adjudication. Hence, in the event of this Court allowing the appeal, the order of the First Appellate Court be set aside and application filed seeking leave to file the appeal may be considered afresh in accordance with law. 11. This Court finds reasonable force in the objection raised by the learned Senior Advocate inasmuch as, it is not the mere change of name alone is not the reason to dismiss the application filed by the appellant. Certain other intrinsic issues are to be adjudicated especially when the alienation has taken place despite the order of the Trial Court during the pendency of the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32196 RSA No. 469 of 2022 12. Thus, expressing any opinion without proper adjudication of the application on merits may hamper the rights of the parties, if leave is granted while allowing this appeal. 13. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Order dated 15.12.2021 passed in R.A.No.15015/2020 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, rejecting the application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh adjudication on the application, allowing the parties to address fresh arguments on the application in accordance with law. (iv) Both parties shall appear before the First Appellate Court without further notice, on 17th July 2026. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39