- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2249 WP No. 38970 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 38970 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT SOLURU VILLAGE, VISHWANATHAPURA POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 3. SRI. GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 4. SMT. KEMPAMMA @ DODDATHAYAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 5. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O GOVINDARAJU D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2249 WP No. 38970 of 2025 ALL ARE R/AT SEEKAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562 110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI IN MISC. APPEAL NO.15017/2025 DATED 17.11.2025. VIDE ANNEXURE – D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sitting at Devanahalli in Misc. Appeal No.15017/2025 dated 17.11.2025 vide Annexure-D. b) To pass any other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of the proceedings. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.808/2013 against the respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.2 and 3 and other - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2249 WP No. 38970 of 2025 defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. The said suit was not contested by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and ultimately, decreed by the trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 10.08.2015. Subsequently, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed miscellaneous petition No.10/2016 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree passed against them. By order dated 27.11.2024, the trial Court dismissed the said miscellaneous petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the appeal in Miscellaneous appeal No.15017/2025, which was opposed/contested by the petitioners and culminated in the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Trial Court allowing the said appeal and setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed against only respondent Nos.1 and 2 and restoring the suit to be disposed of on merits qua respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 17.11.2025, petitioners-plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2249 WP No. 38970 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the First Appellate Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and has recorded findings of facts that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to contest the suit on merits since valid and sufficient cause had been proved/made out by them for the purpose of seeking one more opportunity to contest the suit on merits. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. In the result, I pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2249 WP No. 38970 of 2025 ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of. ii) The impugned order dated 17.11.2025 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.15017/2025 passed by V Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Devanahalli is hereby confirmed. iii) The judgment and decree dated 10.08.2015 passed in O.S.No.808/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli are set aside. iv) Suit is restored to file to be disposed of on merits. v) Since the suit is of the year 2013, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six months form the date of receipt of copy of this order. vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22