Karnataka High Court
Gangamma vs Sri K J Lokesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7938
CRP No. 127 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 127 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. GANGAMMA,
W/O LATE K.N. PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED 65 YEARS,
2. DEVAKI,
S/O LATE K.N. PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED 49 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER,
SRI. K.P. KRISHNA
S/O LATE K.N. PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by 3. SUJATHA,
PAVITHRA N
Location: D/O LATE K.N. PUTTEGOWDA,
high court of AGED 46 YEARS,
karnataka
REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER,
SRI. K.P. KRISHNA
S/O LATE K.N. PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
4. SRI. SURESH,
S/O LATE K.N. PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED 45 YEARS.
5. SRI. K.P. KRISHNA
S/O LATE K.N. PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
R/O SRI. RAMA COLONY,
RAMANABILE, SIRASI TALUK,
UTHARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 401
...PETITIONERS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7938
CRP No. 127 of 2024
(BY SRI: SHRIDHAR NARAYAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K.J. LOKESH,
S/O LATE K.N. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SMT. K.V. PUSHPALATHA,
W/O K.J. LOKESH,
AGED 38 YEARS,
R/O KATTAYA VILLAGE
AND POST, KATTAYA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
2. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE K.N. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
3. SRI. K.J. GOPAL,
S/O LATE K.N. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4. K.J. BALARAMA,
S/O LATE K.N. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
5. SRI. K.J. SUNDRESH,
S/O LATE K.N. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
6. SRI. K.N. DEVEGODA,
S/O LATE NIRVANIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 ARE
R/O KATTAYA VILLAGE AND POST,
KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: T.G. PAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN MISC
NO.8/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7938
CRP No. 127 of 2024
AND JMFC, HASSAN., ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
ORDER 9 RULE 13 OF CPC., FOR SET -ASIDE EXPARTE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED IN ORDER SHEET NO.44/2015 DATED
22.08.2016.
THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. By the impugned order, an application filed
under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the ex-parte decree
has been allowed, subject to payment of cost.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
suit summons were in fact served on the brother of the
first respondent herein (arrayed as defendant No.1(d))
and therefore, defendant No.1(d) could not contend that
he was not aware of the suit being filed.
3. The first respondent has stated before the Trial Court
that he was not in good terms with his brother, on whom
the summons have been served. The record also indicates
that the first respondent is serving in Indian Army and he
has stated that he came to know about the filing of the
NC: 2024:KHC:7938
suit and the decree only after he had come to his village in
the month of January -2017 on leave.
4. In my view, the Trial Court was justified in setting
aside the ex-parte decree in light of the cause shown by
the first respondent and there is no justification to
interfere with the order passed under Section 151 of CPC.
5. Consequently, CRP is dismissed.
6. The Trial Court, having regard to the fact that the
suit is of the year 2015, shall make every endeavor to
dispose of the suit at the earliest, provided the petitioners
and the first respondent co-operates the disposal of the
suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPV
