Karnataka High Court
Sri.Suresh M vs Sri.Muniyappa P on 7 August, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30743
MFA No. 7672 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7672 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. SURESH M,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. MUNIDASAPPA,
R/AT. NO.179, CHIKKADEVASANDRA
VILLAGE, BASAVANAPURA, WARD NO.53,
KRISHNARAJAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.MUNIYAPPA P,
Digitally
signed by S/O LATE POOJAPPA,
RAMYA D REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER,
Location: SRI. M. MANJUNATH,
HIGH COURT
OF S/O MUNIYAPPA P,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKADEVASANDRA VILLAGE,
BASAVANAUPRA WARD NO.53,
KRISHNARAJAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
2. SMT. GANGAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIDASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30743
MFA No. 7672 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SRI. MUNIRAJU M,
S/O LATE MUNIDASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
4. SRI. RAVIKUMAR M,
S/O LATE MUNIDASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
5. SRI. RAMESH M,
S/O LATE MUNIDASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
6. SRI. PRAKASH M,
S/O LATE MUNIDASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 6 ARE
R/AT NO.179,
CHIKKADEVASANDRA VILLAGE,
BASAVANAPURA, WARD NO.53,
KRISHNARAJAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
7. SMT. MUNIYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O LATE NAGAPPA,
8. SRI.MUNJIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
9. SMT. HANUMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
D/O LATE NAGAPPA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:30743
MFA No. 7672 of 2024
HC-KAR
10. SMT. MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
D/O LATE NAGAPPA,
11. SMT. SUDHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
D/O LATE NAGAPPA,
12. SRI. UMESH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 12
ARE R/AT NO.179,
CHIKKADEVASANDRA VILLAGE,
BASAVANAPURA, WARD NO.53,
KRISHNARAJAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
13. SMT. VENKATAMMA,
W/O LATE P. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
14. SRI. KIRAN M,
S/O LATE P. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
15. SRI. SHARATH,
S/O LATE P. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.13 TO 15
ARE R/AT NO.1, 2ND BLOCK,
3RD MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
HOODI WARD NO.54,
AYYAPPA NAGAR,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:30743
MFA No. 7672 of 2024
HC-KAR
KRISHNARAJAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
16. SMT. THIMMAKKA,
D/O LATE POOJAPPA,
W/O OBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT BYRAPURA VILLAGE,
HESARGHATTA HOBLI,
ARAKERE POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 088.
...RESPONDENTS
(R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 ARE SERVED;
R9, R10, R11, R12 & R16 ARE SERVED;
NOTICE TO R1, R13, R14 & R15 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE
ORDER DATED 05.08.2025)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(d) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2024 PASSED ON MISC.
NO.601/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, (CCH-38),
REJECTING PETITION FILED U/O.X RULE 13 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:30743
MFA No. 7672 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant-defendant No.5 has filed this appeal against the order passed in Misc.No.601/2022 dated 10.07.2024 on the file of XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bangalore City, Bangalore. The said miscellaneous petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the exparte judgment and decree in O.S.No.2099/2016, is dismissed.
2. The appellant is defendant No.5 and according to him, the suit summons was not served on him and erroneously defendant No.5 was placed exparte. Later on, the trial Court has decreed the suit.
3. It is submitted that the suit for partition and separate possession was filed without including all the joint properties. Hence, the suit for partition and separate possession is not maintainable for partial partition. Therefore, defendant No.5 needs to canvass this aspect in the suit. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that defendant No.5 be given an opportunity to contest the suit. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:30743 MFA No. 7672 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. Accordingly, the order passed in Misc.No.601/2022 is set aside and also the judgment and decree passed in the suit O.S.No.2099/2016 is set aside. An opportunity is given to appellant-defendant No.5 to lead evidence, also the respondents are reserved liberty to lead further evidence if they so desire.
5. With the above observation, appeal is allowed, subject to cost of Rs.15,000/- payable to the plaintiff since the matter is remanded to the trial Court at the instance of appellant to take on the file. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.15,000/-
payable by the appellant to respondent-plaintiff.
(ii) Misc.No.601/2022 dated 10.07.2024 on the file of XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bangalore City, is set aside and also the judgment and decree passed in the suit O.S.No.2099/2016 is set aside;
(iii) The appeal is remanded to the trial Court, the trial Court shall issue notice to all the parties in the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:30743 MFA No. 7672 of 2024 HC-KAR suit and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible on merits.
(iv) The appellant-defendant No.5 is directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.09.2025.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25