Karnataka High Court
Smt Geetha Govind vs Smt Radha Gowda on 10 October, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40136
RFA No. 179 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT GEETHA GOVIND,
W/O B.H. GOVINDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO. A-2, 326,
KRISHNA BLOCK,
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE,
KORMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 047
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
SMT. SUSHMA B. H.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RADHA GOWDA,
Digitally W/O S. SHIVALINGA GOWDA,
signed by AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
CHANDANA R/AT NO.16, SAMPADA,
BM
2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
Location: 1ST STAGE, KHB COLONY,
High Court of BASAVESWARANAGAR,
Karnataka
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.01.2019
PASSED IN O.S.No.526/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40136
RFA No. 179 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.526/2014 is directed
against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.01.2019
passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff
against the appellant-defendant for permanent injunction
restraining her from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by
the trial Court in favour of the respondent-plaintiff against the
appellant defendant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent
injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule
immovable property. The appellant-defendant entered appearance
NC: 2025:KHC:40136
HC-KAR
and filed written statement contesting the suit, pursuant to which,
the trial Court framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful
possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of
suit?
(ii) Whether plaintiff further proves the alleged
interference by defendant?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
claimed?
(iv) What decree or order?
4. The plaintiff examined her husband as PW-1 and Exs.P1
to P29 were marked. However, the appellant- defendant did not
cross-examine PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary
evidence in support of her defence. In this context, it is the specific
assertion on the part of the appellant that the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant before the trial
court did not inform her about the progress of the case nor secured
any instructions from the appellant who was unaware of the
proceedings and as such, the appellant was not in a position to
cross-examine PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary
evidence in support of her defence.
NC: 2025:KHC:40136
HC-KAR
5. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part
of the appellant-defendant to contest the suit after commencement
of evidence of the respondent - plaintiff was due to bonafide
reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and it is
therefore 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.
6. Per contra, It is contented by the respondent that despite
granting sufficient opportunity, the appellant-defendant did not
exercise due diligence in contesting the suit and as such, the trial
Court was fully justified in passing the impugned judgment and
decree which does not warrant interference by this Court in the
present appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in the present
appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed
by the trial court warrants interference by this Court in the present
appeal?
NC: 2025:KHC:40136
HC-KAR
8. A perusal of the material on record including the
impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the trial court has
taken into account the fact that the evidence of PW-1 remained un-
rebutted and that the appellant - defendant did not adduce any
defence evidence and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the
plaintiff against the defendant. Under these circumstances, having
regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that her
inability and omission to cross-examine PW-1 and adduce defence
evidence was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance
and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in
order to provide one more opportunity to the appellant - defendant,
I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment
and decree and remit the matter back to the trial Court for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain
directions.
9. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 21.01.2019
passed in O.S.No.526/2014 by the trial court is hereby set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:40136
HC-KAR
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) The appellant-defendant is directed to cross-examine
PW-1 on a date to be fixed by the trial Court.
(v) Parties are to appear before the trial Court on 17.11.2025
without awaiting further notice.
(vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce
further oral and documentary evidence in support of their
respective claim.
(vii) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and
no opinion is expressed on the same.
(viii) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously
as possible.
(ix) The appellant - defendant shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/-
to the respondent - plaintiff before the trial court on the date of
appearance i.e., on 17.11.2025.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srl.
