IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.23680/2013 (GM-CPC) AND WRIT PETITION No.27850/2013 Between:
Sri K.K. Sunitha, D/o K.Kempaiah, Aged about 45 years, R/at No.733, Patel Munivenkatappa Layout, Nagawara, Bangalore – 560 045. … Petitioner (By Sri. Vijayashankara Gowda, Advocate) And:
1. Smt. Shanthamma V. Reddy, D/o Apanna Reddy, Aged about 59 years, C/o Cauvery Medical Centre Ltd., No.432, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bangalore – 560 024.
2. Sri Muniyappa, Aged about 75 years.
3. Sri Hanumappa H., Aged about 48 years Respondent No.3 died leaving behind his LRs the respondents No.4 to 8.
4. Sri H. Srinivasan, Aged about 46 years.
5. Sri H Venkatesh, Aged about 44 years.
6. Sri H. Nagesh, Aged about 40 years.
7. Sri H. Suresh, Aged about 38 years.
8. Sri H. Manjunath, Aged about 35 years.
All are sons H. Hanumappa All are R/at Shamapura Arabic College Post, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk 560 045. … Respondents (R2, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 – Served;
v/o dated 22.04.2019, service of notice to R1 is held sufficient; v/o dated 22.04.2019, R4 and R8 are treated as LRs of R3) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records on the file of the 5th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Misc. Petition No.149/2009 and also in O.S. No.10486/2005 and be pleased and quash the order dated 17.09.2012, passed by the 5th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Misc. Petition No.149/2009 and also order dated 13.01.2009 in O.S. No.10486/2005 by allowing the above writ petition as per Annexures C & F.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree in O.S.No.10486/2005.
2. The facts made out would indicate that the petitioner who is defendant No.8 was placed ex-parte and had filed the application to set aside the judgment and decree passed in his absence by placing him ex-parte. Taking note that the order on the application is appealable under the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(d) of CPC, petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law for redressal as against the impugned order. In light of the matter being on record, time spent from the date of institution till the date of disposal of the petition to be taken note of in an appropriate manner, while considering the question of condonation of delay in the proceedings to be instituted by the petitioner as against the impugned order.
Sd/- JUDGE VP