K. Hallibasappa S/O Late K. ... vs Smt. Renuka W/O D.M. Patil
2022 Latest Caselaw 4229 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               DHARWAD BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

               MFA No.103230/2018 (CPC)

Between:

K.Hallibasappa S/o. Late K.Virupanna,
Age 40 years, Occ: Working as Pharmacist,
At PHC Hirebommanahal Village,
Tq.: & Dist.: Koppal -582114.
                                                   ... Appellant
(By Shri Mallikarjun B.Madanalli, Advocate)

And:

Smt. Renuka W/o. D.M. Patil,
Age 35 years, Occ: Household,
R/o.: Hiremath Chawal, 1st Cross,
Ramnagar, Near NTTF, Dharwad,
Tq.: & Dist.: Dharwad-580 003
                                                 ... Respondent
(By Shri Avinash S.Malipatil, Advocate)

      This MFA is filed under Section 104 read with Order 43
Rule 1(D) of the CPC, 1908 against the order dated 14.03.2018,
passed in Civil Misc. No.1/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Gangavathi, dismissing the petition filed under Order 9
Rule 13 of CPC.

      This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
                               :2:



                            JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed challeng ing an order

passed on a petition seeking to set aside an exparte

decree granted in a suit for partition.

2. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion

that the appellant had intentionally not appeared

before the Court despite service of summons as was

evident from Ex.R4. The Court has also come to the

conclusion that the appellant had admitted the

correctness of the order passed in Crl.

Misc.No.3/2015 and he had also mentioned therein

regarding the pendency of the present suit.

3. In my view, the Trial Court was justified in

refusing to set aside the exparte order.

4. It is also pertinent to state here that the

suit was one for partition and was filed by Renuka

against her six siblings, whose relationship is not in

dispute.

5. The Trial Court by the impug ned decree

has granted 1/7 t h share to each of the sib lings. Since

under the decree of partition a share has been

granted in equal proportion to all the children, there

is no infirmity in the decree also. There is absolutely

no justification to entertain a petition for setting

aside the decree which is in accordance with law.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*