- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 431 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. C. CHIKKEGOWDA @ THAMMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS (THROUGH LRS.) 1(A) SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE C. CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 2. B.C.RAMESH S/O LATE C. CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. B.C.RAGHU S/O LATE C. CHIKKEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT.SUDHA W/O LATE B.C. RAGHU AGED 45 YEARS 4. SRI.ABHISEK S/O LATE B.C. RAGHU AGED 28 YEARS 5. B.C.RAJU, S/O C.CHIKKEGOWDA @ THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT BILAGUMBA VILLAGE, ® Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK – 526 126 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.MANASA M.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. A. S. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE C.PARAMASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. MADHUSUDHAN @ MADHU S/O LATE C. PARAMASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. P.MALATHI D/O LATE C.PARAMASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.74/'A', SIR.M.V.LAYOUT, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, NEAR ASHRAMA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 056 4. P.MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE C.PARAMASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.1 , 2 AND 4 ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/AT BELAGUMBA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANANTH MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 TO 4) THIS CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.03.2026, PASSED IN MISC. NO. 3/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT RAMANAGARA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/O IX RULES 9 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders dated 18.03.2026 passed in Misc.No.3/2013 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. The plaintiff had filed OS.No.676/2006 seeking specific performance of a registered agreement of sale. It is the case of the plaintiff that the sale consideration is Rs.12,75,000/-. Out of that, Rs.12,00,000/- has been paid, and as the defendants have failed to execute the sale deed, the suit is filed. 2. Although the defendants entered an appearance, they failed to file the written statement, and an ex parte judgment and decree was passed in OS.No.676/2006 on 17.12.2008. Thereafter, Ex.P.No.98/2009 was filed on 07.09.2009. Even though the execution was not contested, the execution petition was allowed on 23.08.2012. The sale deed was registered on 23.09.2012. Thereafter, on 07.01.2013, the instant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 Misc.P.No.3/2013 was filed with delay. Earlier, when the delay was condoned in WP.No.5415-16/2018, clubbed with WP.No.62047/2016, an order was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, upholding the trial court's order condoning the delay. Thereafter, the present miscellaneous petition was heard, and orders were passed allowing the petition filed by the respondent before the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned senior counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the notice was issued, the petitioner appeared but failed to file the written statement, and the suit was decreed. Even in the execution petition, a vakalatnama was filed. Thereafter, the petitioner did not contest the matter, the Court allowed the EP, and the sale deed was executed. The Miscellaneous Petition was filed on 07.01.2013, as there was no allegation against the Advocate on that day. Later, on 02.03.2013, a complaint was filed against the Advocate, and the Bar Council suspended him. Against that order, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court in the SLP, and the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order. It is the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 contention of the learned senior counsel that the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 1161/2023 was placed before the Court in the Miscellaneous Petition, and the written arguments were filed along with the citations. It is submitted that the trial Court, in that order dated 12.11.2025, observed that the plaintiff, who is the respondent, had filed the citations, the list of dates, and the synopsis. When it comes to the impugned order, the trial Court, at paragraph number 16, records that the petitioner has relied upon certain decisions, i.e., the respondent herein. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the trial Court has failed to consider the citations, particularly the judgment of the Apex Court, and also the other submissions. On these grounds, the impugned order needs to be set aside. 4. Learned senior counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the miscellaneous petition, the trial court has to be satisfied whether the cause shown by the plaintiff is reasonable. In this case, the trial court is satisfied that the cause shown by the party is reasonable and accordingly set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 Learned senior counsel has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in A. Murugesan Vs. Jamuna Rani1, in G.P.Srivastava Vs. R.K.Raizada and others2, and on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Robin Thapa Vs. Rohit Dora3. Relying on these judgments, it is submitted that the trial court rightly exercised its discretion and set aside the order, as it was of the view that there was reasonable cause. Learned senior counsel also submits that the non-filing of the written statement cannot be a ground for the trial court not to permit the defendants to lead evidence, and on all these grounds, the defendant is entitled to a hearing. In the light of the fact that, even with regard to the consideration, the agreement of sale, as they are disputing, the trial court has rightly considered all these aspects, and in the interest of justice, the trial court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree. The order impugned requires no interference from this Court. 5. Having heard the learned senior counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The facts, as culled out with regard to the dates, including the date of filing the suit, 1 (2019) 20 SCC 803 2 (2000) 3 SCC 54 3 (2019) 7 SCC 359 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 the decree, the execution of the sale deed, the date of filing the execution petition, and all other relevant dates, are undisputed. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has not considered the citations and contentions put forth by the plaintiff. This Court has perused the docket order as well as the impugned order, wherein the trial court mentions the citations and other synopsis filed by the petitioner herein in the docket order, who is the respondent in the miscellaneous. In the order, at paragraph number 16, the trial court mentions only the judgments relied on by the respondent herein. When the trial court has heard the parties, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider the case of the respective parties. Further, in light of the arguments and the material placed before the Court, this Court is unable to appreciate the submission made by the learned senior counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents herein have shown sufficient cause to allow the application. Even though the citations/contentions and other grounds raised by the petitioner are not considered. The impugned order cannot be interfered with. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 6. Reasoning is the heartbeat of every judicial order. The Court is duty-bound to consider the contentions of the parties. If the Court does not accept them, there should be a finding to that effect. The reasons recorded by the Court disclose the mental process by which the decision has been reached and demonstrate that the matter has received due and thoughtful consideration. They assure the parties that their submissions have been considered and promote transparency in the administration of justice. They further facilitate appellate or supervisory review courts in understanding the order. Reasons serve as a safeguard against arbitrariness by ensuring that conclusions are grounded in legal principles and evidence rather than mere subjective opinion. Therefore, recording of clear, cogent reasons is an indispensable component of the rule of law and a hallmark of Fair Judicial Process. It applies to all hierarchies of Courts. The requirement to record reasons is not confined to final Judgement alone. Even when passing an Interim order that will affect the rights, obligations or interests of the parties, the Court is expected to disclose at least brief reasons indicating the basis of its conclusion. The status of the Court does not dilute this obligation. Even a High Court, while - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 exercising its Jurisdiction, granting or refusing Interim relief, ought to furnish reasons. An unreasoned Interim order may create uncertainty regarding the factors that weighed with the Court. It is an essential safeguard against arbitrariness in the exercise of Judicial discretion. This Court is not convinced with the manner in which the trial Court has failed to consider the case of the petitioner and failed to record the reasons. In that view of the matter, the impugned order needs to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The impugned order passed in Mis.No.3/2013 dated 18.03.2026 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court. ii. The Trial Court shall consider the respective cases of the parties in the light of the synopsis, citations that are filed by the parties and shall pass a reasoned order, within a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29283 CRP No. 431 of 2026 period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. iii. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, and the trial court shall consider the matter in accordance with law. iv. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Allowed. v. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60