Karnataka High Court
Laxmi vs Shankar Singh on 20 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7041
MFA No. 202366 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202366 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAXMI W/O. THIPPANNA,
AGE 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O RAICHUR.
THROUGH HER GPA HOLDER,
GOVINDA S/O. THIPPANNA,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O GAJAGARPET, RAICHUR,
TALUK & DIST. RAICHUR-584 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SUMITRA AND:
SHERIGAR
Location: SHANKAR SINGH
HIGH
COURT OF S/O. NARASINGH BHANUSING,
KARNATAKA AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O SAVITRI COLONY,
TALUK & DIST. RAICHUR-584 103.
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. XLIII RULE 1(t) OF CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14-06-2024
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RAICHUR, IN THE CIVIL MISC. NO.09/2022 AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7041
MFA No. 202366 of 2024
HC-KAR
CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE R.A. NO. 05/2020 AND
DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF
HEARING BY EXTENDING TWO MONTHS TIME FOR
DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 31.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff - Laxmi requesting
the Court to set aside the order dated 14.06.2024 passed
by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CMJ, Bidar in Civil Misc.
No.09/2022 and consequently to restore R.A. No.5/2020.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Initially one Laxmi filed O.S. No.233/2009 for
declaration and injunction and she contended that she is
the exclusive owner of open house plot bearing plot No.7
with Municipal No.8-11-180/190/7 measuring 9 meters x
12 meters near Raichur. She acquired title to the suit plot
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7041
HC-KAR
through registered sale deed vide document
No.1364/2003-04 dated 19.07.2003 and got registered
the same before the Sub-Registrar, Raichur, for valid
consideration. Later she got mutated her name in the
CMC records. She approached Bank Authorities for
housing loan to construct house in the suit schedule 'B'
plot, but the Bank refused to extend the loan as there are
no properly linked documents i.e., NA order, layout
approval and CMC approval. She approached defendant to
comply necessary conditions and the defendant converted
the land for NA by order dated 25.10.2004 thereafter the
defendant obtained approval from the RDA and also CMC.
Finally plaintiff by an order of CMC got administrative
approval dated 23.12.2006, wherein CM has assigned
municipal numbers 8-3-1:1 to 8-3-1:108 in respect of the
layout, wherein, suit schedule - B plot was transformed
into suit schedule - A plot and it is part and parcel of the
lands bearing Survey Nos.889/5 to 11 and 890/A, B and C.
In this regard defendant issued paper publication on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7041
HC-KAR
12.01.2007. Plaintiff came to know that the defendant is
trying to dispose of the suit plot to 3rd parties and thus
filed suit for declaration. After service of the suit
summons, the defendant appeared and stated that he
incurred expenditure for land conversion and development
charges and also issued paper publication. The Trial Court
decreed the suit on 26.11.2019 directing the defendant to
execute the rectification deed in continuation of earlier
sale deed dated 18.07.2003 by incorporating the correct
boundaries as per the approved map and also restrained
the defendant from alienating suit schedule property.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant filed
R.A. No.5/2020. Appellant/plaintiff engaged the counsel,
but he has not represented the case. Appeal was allowed
on 07.02.2022 and the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.
No.233/2009 dated 26.11.2019 was set aside. Aggrieved
by the ex-parte judgment, appellant-plaintiff filed Civil
Misc. No.9/2022 for readmission of the appeal, but it was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7041
HC-KAR
dismissed on 14.06.2024. Against the said order, she
preferred this appeal.
4. Appellant stated that the Appellate Court issued
notice through RPAD returnable by 03.02.2020. On that
day, for want of copy, matter was adjourned. On
20.03.2020 the Court observed that notice served on the
respondent and called absent and for appearance of the
respondent it was adjourned to 07.04.2020 and from then
onwards it has been adjourned for several days due to
COVID-19 Pandemic and appellant was never placed ex-
parte. After re-opening of the Court, on 11.11.2020
appellant was placed ex-parte, posted the matter for
arguments on 06.01.2021 and then posted for judgment.
5. Courts are closed as per the guidelines issued
by the High Court and directed not to pass any adverse
orders in pending proceedings. Appellate Court ought to
have taken judicial notice of the same and provided an
opportunity of hearing. On 20.03.2020 it was observed in
the order-sheet that, "Junior for Advocate for the appellant
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7041
HC-KAR
was present, notice served on respondent. Appellant
Called out absent and for appearance of the respondent
posted the matter on 07.04.2020". Later it was taken up
on 11.12.2020 and on that day respondent was placed as
ex-parte and posted the matter for arguments. Therefore,
requested this Court to set aside the order dated
14.06.2024.
6. Laxmi, the plaintiff in O.S. No.233/2009 filed
suit on 13.08.2009. The judgment was pronounced on
26.11.2019. It was decreed in her favour. Defendant is
directed to execute the rectification deed in continuation to
the earlier sale deed. Defendant and his men were
restrained from alienating suit schedule - A property.
Aggrieved by the said order, defendant preferred R.A. No.
5/2020. As Laxmi could not represent through counsel,
the Appellate Court heard arguments of other side and
also perused the records and finally allowed the appeal by
setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved
by the said order, Laxmi preferred Civil Misc. No.9/2022.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7041
HC-KAR
It was dismissed on 14.06.2024. Against the said order,
this appeal is preferred.
7. It is the main contention of the appellant-
plaintiff that no reasonable opportunity was given to her
and she could not represent the matter during COVID-19
Pandemic. Admittedly, notice issued to her was served
upon her. Even after service of notice she could not
appear before the Court on 07.04.2020. As such, it was
taken up on 11.12.2020. On that day she was said ex-
parte and the matter was posted for argument on
06.01.2020. It is clear that appellant knows about the
pendency of the appeal and inspite of notice she did not
turn up on 07.04.2020 and she has not enquired about the
case details even afterwards till she was placed ex-parte
on 11.12.2020.
8. Additional Senior Civil Judge considered all
these aspects in detail and found that the rectification
order entirely changes the nature of the property. Though
she purchased the property under Ex.P1 she kept quite for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7041
HC-KAR
more than six years and the suit itself is barred by
limitation, after the amendment she did not step into the
witness box. She sought for entirely new relief. As such,
suit for declaration of is barred by limitation and there is
variation in the boundaries in suit schedule - A property
and suit schedule - B properties. After reading
newspaper publication in the year 2007, she has not
issued any notice to the defendant. As per the layout
there were 108 plots. She has not submitted any further
evidence after the amendment and accordingly the appeal
was allowed and judgment in O.S. No.233/2009 was set
aside. Aggrieved by the said order she preferred Civil
Misc. No.9/2020, which was also dismissed. Now she
came up with this application stating that no reasonable
opportunity was given to her. She has knowledge of the
proceedings, but she has not engaged counsel and
contested the matter on merits. This Court finds no
reason to interfere with the orders of the Additional Senior
Civil Judge passed in Civil Misc. No.9/20204 dated
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7041
HC-KAR
14.06.2024. Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
SBS
CT:RJ
