- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31974 WP No. 18055 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18055 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI NAGARAJU G.K., S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT S.M. GOLLAHALLI ARALUMALLIGE POST, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H M MADHUSUDHANA, AD) AND: 1. SMT. CHINNAMMA, W/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT VADDANAAHATTY VILLAGE, BYLAIAH HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT – 572 101, 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, D/O. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O CHINNABHOVI @ WADDARA CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31974 WP No. 18055 of 2026 4. SRI. VENKATESH S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. SRI. GANGADHAR S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 5 ALL ARE R/AT KOTTALADINNE VILLAGE, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, SINCE RESPONDENT 1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. NAGESH S/O KRISHNAPPA 6. SRI. G.N. DHARSHAN S/O NAGARAJU G.K AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 7. SMT. G.N. GOWTHAMI D/O NAGARAJU G.K AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 6 AND 7 ARE R/AT S.M. GOLLAHALLI ARALUMALLIGE POST, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203 8. SRI. KONIDALA BALAJI S/O LATE K. CHENGAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31974 WP No. 18055 of 2026 9. SMT. VARSHA BALAJI KONIDALA D/O KONIDALA W/O ARJUN .G AGED ABOUT RESPONDENT NO. 8 AND 9 ARE R/AT NO.1830, 3RD CROSS 18TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE B.T.M. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-76 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDERS ON I.A. NO.2 DTD. 05.06.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DODDABALLAPURA, IN R.A.NO. 10023/2024 IS AT ANNX-D AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FROM NOT ALIENATE THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 in R.A.No.10023/2024 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura. 2. The facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed O.S.No.365/2020 for the relief of declaration and injunction. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 22.02.2024. The matter was carried in appeal in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31974 WP No. 18055 of 2026 R.A.No.10023/2024. In the said appeal, despite service of summons, the petitioner before this Court failed to appear before the trial Court and was set ex-parte. In that, an instant I.A. is filed seeking to set aside the ex-parte order. In support of the application, it is stated that due to ill health, he was unable to appear before the Court and the trial Court had placed him ex-parte. It is stated that there are serious objections to the case and in the absence, it will be adversely affected. It is stated that the non-appearance on that day was not intentional but for the reasons stated above. If the ex-parte order is not recalled, he will be put to hardship. In response, the appellants have filed their objections, stating that the petitioner has filed a false affidavit and after the lapse of 2 ½ years, the petitioner has come up with an application without stating any reasons. It is stated that the High Court in the judgment reported in ILR 2004 Karnataka 2215 has laid down that no application can be filed after the final arguments have been heard and the matter is posted for judgment. 3. The Appellate Court, by the impugned order, rejected I.A.No.II filed by the petitioner herein to set aside the ex-parte - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31974 WP No. 18055 of 2026 order. The Appellate Court observed that the record reveals that the appellants have filed O.S.No.365/2020 for the relief of declaration and injunction. The petitioner herein was placed ex- parte before the trial Court. However, the said suit was dismissed with costs. Hence, the present appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. Even in this appeal, the defendants/respondents were placed ex-parte on 20.06.2024. After the lapse of two years, the present application was filed, even after the matter was reserved for judgment. The order sheet reveals that on 24.01.2026, the written arguments were filed by the appellants and the matter was posted for judgment. The present application was filed on the date of judgment i.e., on 02.03.2026. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, as per the decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2215, no interim applications are maintainable when the matter is reserved for judgment. The Appellate Court observed that the reason stated by the applicants for the delay in filing the application is not supported by any documents and accordingly dismissed the I.A. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court failed to consider the application and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31974 WP No. 18055 of 2026 there is no inordinate delay, and the Appellate Court ought to have set aside the ex-parte order and ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute the matter. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed in the year 2020. In the suit itself, the petitioner was set ex-parte. However, the suit was dismissed. Against that, an appeal was filed. Even in the appeal, after service of summons, the petitioner still failed to appear before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court then heard the matter and reserved it for judgment and at that point of time, this application was filed. This Court has perused the application. There is no whisper about the petitioner's non-appearance before the trial Court as well as before the Appellate Court. The only statement is that if the application is not allowed, it would cause hardship. Nothing else has been stated. Despite notice, during the pendency of the suit and the appeal, the petitioner has conveniently not appeared before the Courts. When there is a delay in filing the I.A., the application shall contain the reasons for the delay, and the Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31974 WP No. 18055 of 2026 But in this case, the affidavit contains no muchless valid reasons. The Appellate Court had rightly considered the judgment of the High Court in the facts and circumstances and rightly dismissed the application, and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51