- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5292 OF 2019 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI C. ONKARAPPA S/O. SRI K.CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR OF M/S CHANNAKESHAVA ENTERPRISES, 3RD CROSS C.K.PURA, BEHIND GENERAL HOSTEL, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …APPELLANT (BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BEHIND BASAVESHWARA TALKIES CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(D) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2014 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC.NO.156/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND RESTORE THE MISC. PETITION NO.50/2005 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, CHITRADURGA AND ETC. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent. 2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was petitioner in Civil Misc.No.156/2011 and respondent No.1 in Misc.Petition No.50/05, challenging the order dated 15.07.2014 passed in Civil Misc.No.156/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga and restore the order dated 21.02.2011 passed in Misc.Petition No.50/05 by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga. 3. The respondent–Corporation had instituted Misc. Petition No.50/05 under Section 31(1)(a) and (aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, seeking enforcement of the liability of the appellant for recovery of a sum of ₹2,86,986/-. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 4. In the said petition, the appellant entered appearance through counsel and filed his statement of objections. Thereafter, the matter was posted for the respondent's evidence on 14.07.2006. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent filed an application, which came to be dismissed on 26.09.2006. Upon completion of the respondent's evidence, the matter was posted for cross-examination. However, the cross-examination was not conducted. Thereafter, the matter was posted for orders and by order dated 21.02.2011, the trial Court allowed the petition in favour of the respondent-Corporation. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed Civil Misc.No.156/2011 under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 21.02.2011 passed in Misc.Petition No.50/05 by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 6. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant that, despite having filed the statement of objections, the appellant could not remain present before the trial Court owing to ill-health and financial difficulties. Consequently, the matter proceeded in the appellant's absence and culminated in the ex parte order dated 21.02.2011. 6.1 It is further contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside, as the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to contest the proceedings and defend the case. He further contends that being aggrieved by the order passed in Civil Misc.No.156/2011, the appellant herein preferred W.P.Nos.54037/2014 and 13805/2015. The said writ petitions came to be disposed of as not maintainable by order dated 02.01.2019. Liberty was reserved to the appellant to avail the remedy of filing an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of CPC. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 6.2 Pursuant to the liberty so reserved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 passed in Civil Misc.No.156/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. There is a delay of 1,719 days in filing the appeal. The said period of delay includes the time spent by the appellant in prosecuting W.P.Nos.54037/2014 and 13805/2015, which came to be disposed of on 02.01.2019. The present appeal was thereafter filed on 20.06.2019. 6.3 It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant that if an opportunity is provided by imposing reasonable cost, the appellant will be able to contest the matter, defend the case and make out a good ground in the petition filed by the respondent-Corporation. Accordingly, he seeks to allow this appeal. 7. Per contra, Sri P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent–Corporation, vehemently contends that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 present appeal is not maintainable in view of the inordinate delay of 1,719 days in filing the appeal. He further submits that even the earlier miscellaneous petition filed by the appellant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was instituted with a delay of more than three months. Therefore, the appellant has failed to exhibit due diligence and has displayed a callous approach in prosecuting the petition instituted by the respondent–Corporation. 7.1 Learned counsel for respondent-Corporation further submits that the appellant does not deserve any further indulgence, as the present appeal is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings. He contends that despite the order having been passed against the appellant as far back as in the year 2011, no payment has been made till date. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant had availed the loan from the respondent– Corporation. However, the appellant disputes the disbursement of the loan. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant had filed statement of objections to the petition instituted by the respondent–Corporation, wherein he admitted having availed the loan. However, his specific contention is that the entire sanctioned loan amount was not disbursed. The said contention raised in the matter requires adjudication on the basis of evidence, and the appellant ought to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to contest and defend the proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that an opportunity deserves to be given to the appellant, subject to stringent conditions. Accordingly, while imposing reasonable costs and prescribing a time- bound schedule for disposal of the petition, this appeal could be disposed. The appellant shall deposit 75% of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 amount awarded under the order passed by the trial Court in Misc.Petition No.50/2005. Subject to compliance of the said condition, the appellant shall be permitted to contest the matter on merits by condoning the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2019 for condonation of delay is allowed. 10. For the reasons stated above, I pass the following: ORDER i. This appeal is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 15.07.2014 passed in Civil Misc.No.156/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is hereby set aside; iii. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration; iv. The order dated 21.02.2011 passed in Misc. Petition No.50/05 by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, is restored to its original file; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 v. The appellant shall deposit 75% of the amount awarded by the trial Court, along with the interest as directed therein, before the trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; vi. The amount deposited shall be subject to the final outcome of the original miscellaneous petition; vii. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the petition within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; viii. Both parties shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the matter; ix. The trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary costs on the appellant in the event of any unnecessary adjournment; x. The respondent-Corporation is at liberty to file appropriate application for withdrawal of amount. If such an application is filed, the trial Court shall - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30049 MFA No. 5292 of 2019 consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law; xi. The appellant shall pay cost of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondent-Corporation before the trial Court; xii. The deposit of the costs and the amount directed hereinabove shall be a condition precedent for further proceedings in the matter. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24