Karnataka High Court
Sri. M. C. Puttaswamy vs Smt. Nagarathnamma on 14 October, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40917
CRP No. 407 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 407 OF 2017 (M)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. C. PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
SON OF M.C. MASTI GOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.8,
11TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
by SUMA B N WIFE OF LATE P. KRISHNAMURTHY,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF RESIDING AT NO.506,
KARNATAKA 7TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
GOKULA II STAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
2. SRI. K. M. PRAKASH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SON OF LATE P. KRISHNAMURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO.506,
7TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40917
CRP No. 407 of 2017
HC-KAR
GOKULA II STAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
3. SRI. K. M. RAMESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
SON OF LATE P. KRISHNAMURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO.506,
7TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
GOKULA II STAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
4. SMT. MEENAKSHI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE P. KRISHNAMURTHY,
RESIDING AT NO.506,
7TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
GOKULA II STAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC
1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2017 PASSED IN
MISC.NO.402/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-8)., ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40917
CRP No. 407 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. V. B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Jeevan K, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Respondents in Miscellaneous case No.402/2007 who are the plaintiff in O.S. No.2468/1994 is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH. No.8) in Misc. No.402/2007, whereby an application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, came to be allowed.
3. Operative portion of the said order reads as under:
ORDER ''The petition filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2468/1994 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH. No.8) on 24.09.1994 is hereby set aside. Consequently the proceedings in Ex.No.1160/2002 are also hereby set aside.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:40917 CRP No. 407 of 2017 HC-KAR Office is directed to put up the file before this Court in O.S.No.2468/1994 on 23.10.2017. The parties are directed to appear before this Court on that day without waiting for the court notice. ''
4. Sri. V. B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner at the outset would submit that pursuant to the decree that has been passed in O.S.No.2468/1994, Execution Petition came to be filed and the decree is also executed and plaintiff is put in possession of the suit property. By virtue of the impugned order, not only the order of defendant being placed ex-parte is set aside, but also the proceedings in the execution case is set aside, which is outside the scope of enquiry in an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and sought for allowing the revision petition.
5. Per contra, K. Jeevan, learned counsel for the defendant in O.S.No.2468/1994 and respondent in the present revision petition supports the impugned order.
6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the matter on record meticulously. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:40917 CRP No. 407 of 2017 HC-KAR
7. Insofar as exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Court which tried the Misc. No.402/2007 in setting aside the order placing the defendant-respondent ex-parte is well within the powers of the Court.
8. However, nullifying the effect of executing the decree is outside the scope of the enquiry in respect of an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Therefore, such portion of the order needs interference by this Court by exercising the revisional powers.
9. Accordingly following:
ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the order of setting aside the defendant-respondent being placed ex parte and restoring the suit for fresh adjudication in accordance with law in O.S.No.2468/1994, the remaining portion of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40917 CRP No. 407 of 2017 HC-KAR the impugned order whereby nullifying the effect of execution of the decree is hereby set aside.
iii. It is made clear that in the event if the defendant succeeds in the suit in O.S.No.2468/1994, the possession obtained by the plaintiff can be obtained by the defendant by resorting to Section 144 of CPC.
iv. No orders as to costs.
SD/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
RL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10