Karnataka High Court
Sri Rizwan Ulla Baig vs Smt Sabiha Sulthana @ Parveen Begum on 24 March, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12452
RFA No. 182 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2022 (POS-)
BETWEEN:
SRI RIZWAN ULLA BAIG
SON OF AMEER HUSSAIN BAIG
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.21 CHANDININ CHOWK ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED MUJASSIM AND
ALLAH BAKASH.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT SABIHA SULTHANA
@ PARVEEN BEGUM
Digitally WIFE OF T.M.SHUJATH ALI BAIG
signed by AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NANDINI D REPRESENTED BY
Location: HER GPA HOLDER
High Court
of Karnataka T.M. SHUJATH ALI BAIG,
SON OF MURUTUZA ALI BAIG,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST CROSS, SOMESHWARA NAGAR,
JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK,
BANGALORE- 560 011
2. SRI A.K. KOUSER
SON OF ANWAR
MAJOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12452
RFA No. 182 of 2022
R/AT NO.21,
CHANDINI CHOWK ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI .S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1
R-2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.10.2021 PASSED IN OS.No.3014/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.INTIMECF
INSUFFICIENTI.A.1/22 FOR STAYI.A.1/22 FILED U/O XLI RULE 5 R/W
SEC.151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2021 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL/CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.3014/2017 is
directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated
30.10.2021 passed by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53) (for short "the Trial Court"), whereby
the said suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and
other reliefs filed by the 1st respondent - plaintiff against the
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12452
RFA No. 182 of 2022
appellant - 1st defendant and 2nd respondent - 2nd defendant was
decreed in favour of the 1st respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for 1st respondent and perused the material on record.
Though the 2nd respondent having been served with the notice of
this appeal, he has chosen to remain absent and unrepresented.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
1st respondent - plaintiff having filed the aforesaid suit, the
appellant - 1st defendant contested the same while 2nd respondent
- 2nd defendant remained ex-parte. The Trial Court framed as
many as four issues and one additional issue, pursuant to which,
the P.A. Holder of the plaintiff having been examined as PW-1 and
producing documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P15, the appellant
did not cross-examine PW-1 but examined himself as DW-1. The
Trial Court having heard both sides, proceed to pass the impugned
judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff which is assailed by
the appellant - 1st defendant in the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that apart
from the fact that the Trial Court has not considered or appreciated
the material on record in its proper perspective, the inability and
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:12452
RFA No. 182 of 2022
omission on the part of the appellant to cross-examine PW-1 was
due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient
cause and as such, it is necessary to set aside the impugned
judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court
for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent -
plaintiff submits that he has not objection for the matter to be
remitted back to the Trial Court subject to payment of exemplary
costs and directions to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a
stipulated timeframe.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
joint submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and
appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court and remit the matter back to the Trial
Court for reconsideration afresh by issuing certain directions.
7. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby allowed, subject to payment of costs of
Rs.30,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the 1st respondent within
period of three weeks from today.
NC: 2025:KHC:12452
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.10.2021
passed in O.S.No.3014/2017 by the Trial Court is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of both appellant and 1st
respondent to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in
support of their respective claims and also cross-examine the
opposite party and their witnesses.
(iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on
15.04.2025 without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court.
(v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a
period of four months from 15.04.2025.
(vi) The Registry is directed to refund the entire court fee
paid by the appellant on the memorandum of appeal, forthwith,
without any delay.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srl.
