Karnataka High Court
Sri P Sriram vs Sri N Maruthi on 6 April, 2026
-1-
WP No. 12036 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 12036 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI P SRIRAM,
S/O. FAKIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT No.58/A, CHIKKABANAVARA,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI N. MARUTHI,
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKABANAVARA VILLAGE,
OLD PANCHAYATH ROAD,
Digitally
signed by CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
VINUTHA B S HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
Location: High BANGALORE - 560090.
Court of
Karnataka
2. SRI T. PUTTAIAH,
S/O. LATE PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKABANAVARA VILLAGE
BEHIND BASAVA TEMPLE,
CHIKKABANAWARA POST,
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560090.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVA KUMAR D. A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) -2- WP No. 12036 of 2025 THIS WRIT PITITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN M.A.No.55/2018 BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW MA No. 55/2018 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri D.A. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1.
2. Defendant No.2 in O.S. No.548/2009 is before this Court, impugning the order dated 25.04.2018 passed in Misc. No.3/2011 by the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, "trial Court"), as well as the order dated 27.04.2024 passed in M.A. No.55/2018 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, "appellate Court").
2.1 The applicants in Misc. No.3/2011 and M.A. No.55/2018 are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S. No.548/2009. The present writ petition is filed only by defendant No.2. The -3- WP No. 12036 of 2025 trial Court issued summons to the petitioner. As the summons could not be served, notice appears to have been issued through RPAD, which was returned unserved. Thereafter, the trial Court allowed the application for substituted service by way of paper publication. The petitioner did not appear before the trial Court. Consequently, the trial Court held the service to be sufficient and placed defendant Nos.2 and 3 ex parte. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to pass the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2011.
2.2 Both defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The trial Court rejected the said application by order dated 25.04.2018. Aggrieved by the same, a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC was filed. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by order dated 27.04.2024. Though the impugned orders were passed at the instance of defendant Nos.2 and 3, only defendant No.2 has chosen to challenge the said orders.
3. Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though respondent No.1 and the petitioner hail from the same village, the suit was presented -4- WP No. 12036 of 2025 with an insufficient address so as to avoid service of notice. It is contended that the summons issued was returned with an endorsement stating that the addressee was not residing at the given premises. It is further submitted that the notice issued through RPAD was returned with the postal shara "insufficient address." It is contended that service of notice through paper publication is permissible only when service is deliberately avoided. In the present case, in the absence of a sufficient address, non-service cannot be construed as avoidance of service so as to justify substituted service by way of paper publication.
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court, by incorrectly appreciating the evidence of the petitioner, concluded that no ground was made out to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. It is contended that the appellate Court has also committed a similar error. It is further submitted that the petitioner has title and interest in the suit schedule property, and the decree has been passed without affording him an opportunity to defend his rights. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the ex parte judgment and decree be set aside and the matter be remitted for fresh -5- WP No. 12036 of 2025 consideration, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
4. Sri D.A. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that the plaintiff in the suit had furnished the correct address of the petitioner. It is contended that the Court summons, as well as the notice sent through RPAD, were deliberately avoided by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the trial Court, upon being satisfied that there was evasion of service, permitted substituted service by way of paper publication and held the service to be sufficient. Learned counsel contends that notice was attempted through all recognised modes of service.
4.1 It is also submitted that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings and, despite such knowledge, chose not to participate in the suit. It is contended that only after the suit was decreed, the present applications were filed seeking to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree, with an intention to delay the proceedings and to harass respondent No.1.
-6-WP No. 12036 of 2025
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the following reasons:
5.1 The address of the petitioner furnished in the present petition and in the plaint is the same, except for a variation in the door number. The summons issued was returned with an endorsement stating that "defendant No.2 is not residing at the given address." Though a copy of the summons and the endorsement pertaining to defendant No.2/petitioner is not placed on record, it is submitted that a similar endorsement was made. Likewise, the notice issued through RPAD was returned with the postal shara "insufficient address." Thereafter, the trial Court entertained the application for substituted service, and notice was published in a newspaper having wide circulation in the locality. The trial Court, being satisfied as to the sufficiency of service, proceeded to place the petitioner ex parte.
5.2 In the course of consideration of the application, evidence was recorded, wherein the petitioner (PW1) has admitted that he had knowledge of the proceedings and had intentionally not participated in the same. Both the Courts have -7- WP No. 12036 of 2025 held that it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not residing at the address mentioned. No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the petitioner was residing at any address other than the one stated in the plaint. It is also noteworthy that the address of the petitioner as mentioned in the plaint and in the present petition is one and the same.
5.3 Be that as it may, even assuming for the sake of argument that the address furnished was insufficient, service of notice through paper publication is one of the recognised modes of service. In the present case, notice was published in a newspaper. There is no dispute with regard to the wide circulation of the said newspaper in the locality where the petitioner resides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1999 KAR 932, in the case of Smt. Sitabai vs. Narayana Rao & Others, to contend that, in the absence of notice being sent to the correct address, mere service through paper publication would not constitute sufficient service.
5.4 The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. In the case relied upon, evidence was placed on record to show that the addressee was residing at an -8- WP No. 12036 of 2025 address different from the one mentioned in the plaint, and therefore, the unserved notices could not be construed as evasion of service. Such a factual matrix does not arise in the present case. In the present case, the petitioner, who examined himself as PW.1, has admitted as follows:
"rQæ «ZÁgÀ UÉÆvÁÛzÀ JµÀÄÖ ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ F PÉøÀÄ ºÁQ¢ÝgÀ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÀÄÆ®zÁªÉAiÀÄ J¯Áè ¥ÉÆæ¹rAUïìUÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ £ÁªÀÅ GzÉÝñÀ ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV ºÁdgÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ F ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÀÆrzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
5.5 The petitioner, examined as PW.1, has further admitted that the address mentioned in the plaint and in Exs.P17 to P19, namely the summons, RPAD cover, and the address notified in the newspaper publication, are one and the same. The contention that there are about 5,000 houses in Chikkabanavara village and that, in the absence of a house number, identification of the noticee would be difficult, cannot be accepted. The documents relied upon, namely the summons and the RPAD cover, pertain to defendant No.3. Both the Courts, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the admission made by PW.1, and having noticed that the address mentioned in the plaint and the address furnished by the -9- WP No. 12036 of 2025 petitioner in the application are one and the same, have rightly rejected the application as well as the appeal.
6. Upon re-consideration of the reasons assigned by both the Courts and the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that there are no infirmities or error in the impugned orders warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/MV