- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2026 (RO) BETWEEN: SRI SIDDARAMASWAMY S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT IDAKANAHALLI- 572 222 NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNA @ RATHNAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJU K, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O. NO.33, SRI GANDAKAVERI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 024. 2. SRI. I.G. SIDDARAJU, S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O. NO.11, 47TH BLOCK, SYNDICATE BANK OFFICERS QUARTERS, OPP. BMTC BUS STATION, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026 3. SMT. SUMANGALA, W/O. LATE BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT YELACHIHALLI, KADABA HOBLI - 572 219 GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 4. SMT. SUJATHA, W/O. LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A. HONNUDIKE-572 122 HONNUDIKE, GULUR HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 - ABSENT, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.08.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2025 PASSED IN RA.NO.119/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.13/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and there is no representation on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3/plaintiff though served is not represented by any advocate. 2. This appeal is filed against the decree remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. While remanding the matter, the Appellate Court has permitted defendants No.2 and 3 to contest the matter, as they were placed ex-parte and imposed certain conditions and permitted defendants No.2 and 3 to lead evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiff. 3. Defendant No.5 is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.5/appellant would submit that while remanding the matter, the condition could not have been imposed in such - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026 a way which could restrict the right of defendant No.5 to contest the matter, if any adverse stand is taken by defendants No.2 and 3 in the written statement. The written statement filed by defendants No.2 and 3 is not placed before this Court. Under these circumstances, he would submit that the remand should have been an open remand where defendant No.5 should also be permitted to contest the matter. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. The following substantial question of law would arise for consideration: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in permitting only defendants No.2 and 3 to contest the matter after the remand?" 7. The judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court would reveal that defendants No.2 and 3 remained ex-parte before the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026 However, defendant No.5 had contested the matter. Suit was partly decreed. As against the judgment and decree, defendants No.2 and 3 filed an appeal and on their appeal, the matter was remanded as they had remained ex-parte before the Trial Court and they had not contested the matter. Hence, while remanding the matter, the Court restricted the reconsideration of the case only pursuant to the defence to be taken by defendants No.2 and 3. Hence, defendant No.5 impliedly is not permitted to contest the matter. 8. Since the learned counsel for defendant No.5/appellant would submit that in case defendants No.2 and 3 take a stand which is contrary to the interest of defendant No.5, then the defendant No.5 should be permitted to contest the matter against the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 as well. The Court finds merits in the said submission. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026 9. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree are modified partly. In case, defendants No.2 and 3 take any stand prejudicial to the interest of defendant No.5 or in case the plaintiff takes any stand while cross-examining defendants No.2 and 3 prejudicial to the interest of defendant No.5, then defendant No.5 should also be permitted to contest the matter as advised in law. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The Judgment and decree dated 23.01.2025 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru are modified. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026 iii. The appellant/defendant No.5 is permitted to contest the matter in the circumstances narrated above. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26