Karnataka High Court
Sri. M Pavan Kalyan vs State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10477
RFA No. 1464 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1464 OF 2022 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M PAVAN KALYAN
S/O SRI MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
NARAYANA RAO COLONY
BANGALORE - 560 021.
2. SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O SRI. VIJAY RAJ
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
NARAYANA RAO COLONY
BANGALORE - 560 021.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K B NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CHANDANA B M
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, 7TH FLOOR
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
OFFICE AT 18TH CROSS,
NEAR CENTRE MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10477
RFA No. 1464 of 2022
4. THE DIRECTOR
SSLC BOARD
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION
EXAMINATION BOARD,
6TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003.
5. THE HEAD MASTER
GANDHI VIDYASHALA HIGH SCHOOL
SREERAMPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 021.
6. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4 & R-6;
R-3 & R-5 ARE SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.05.2022 PASSED IN OS
NO.5794/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and
decree dated 23.05.2022 passed in O.S.No.5794/2021 by the VII
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit
filed by the appellants - plaintiffs against the respondents -
defendants for declaration that the name of the 1st plaintiff's father
NC: 2025:KHC:10477
was 'Manjunatha' instead of 'Murthy S.' and for mandatory
injunction directing the respondents to make necessary corrections
in the Marks Cards, Certificates etc., issued by the respondents in
favour of the 1st appellant - 1st plaintiff and for other reliefs was
dismissed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
AGA for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and perused the material
on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the appellants -
plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit interalia contending that 1st
appellant's - 1st plaintiff's father's name was actually 'Manjunatha'
and due to oversight and inadvertence and on account of clerical /
typographical errors, it was shown as 'Murthy S' instead of
'Manjunatha' in the Marks Cards, Certificates and other documents
of the 1st plaintiff and despite the request made by the appellants to
the respondents to change the father's name of 1st appellant - 1st
plaintiff as 'Manjunatha' instead of 'Murthy S.' was not complied
with by the respondents, despite issuance of legal notice dated
28.07.2021, the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the
defendants before the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:10477
4. The respondents 1 to 6 - defendants 1 to 6 did not
enter appearance and hence, they were placed ex-parte.
Appellants - plaintiffs examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2
and documentary evidence at Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked. The
Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree
dismissing the suit filed by the appellants, who is before this Court
by way of the present appeal.
5. The material on record clearly establishes that apart
from the fact that the pleadings and evidence adduced by the
appellants - plaintiffs had remained unimpeached, uncontroverted
and unchallenged by the respondents - defendants, who had not
appeared and adduced any evidence to rebut the claim of the
appellants, the cumulative effect of the evidence adduced by the
appellants, is sufficient to indicate that the actual name of the 1st
appellant's father was 'Manjunatha' and not 'Murthy S' as wrongly
and incorrectly stated in the Certificates, Marks Cards, etc., of the
1st appellant. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the Trial Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the suit
filed by the appellants by passing the impugned judgment and
decree which deserves to be set aside by this Court in the present
appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:10477
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated
23.05.2022 passed in O.S.No.5794/2021 on the file of the VII
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-19)
is hereby set aside.
(iii) The suit is hereby decreed as prayed for by the
appellants.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SV
