Karnataka High Court
Sri Naveen R vs Sri Rohan Steve Salian on 28 October, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43026
WP No. 28066 of 2025
C/W WP No. 13566 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 28066 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 13566 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 28066/2025
BETWEEN:
ROHAN SALIAN
SON OF LATE PRAVIN KUMAR SALIAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NOS. 301, 302 AND 402
MONTE TABOR, BDS NAGAR
KOTHNUR, BENGALURU-560 077
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUMAN K S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
NAVEEN R
Digitally signed SON OF MR. RAMAKRISHNA R P
by
GAVRIBIDANUR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SUBRAMANYA RESIDING AT NO. 626,
GUPTA
SREENATH 4tH C MAIN ROAD,
Location: HIGH OMBR LAYOUT,
COURT OF BENGALURU-560 078
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN S, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA NO.8 DTD 14TH AUGUST 2025 IN OS
NO.3540 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE
LXVI ADDI. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-67) AT
BENGALURU (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE -A) AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43026
WP No. 28066 of 2025
C/W WP No. 13566 of 2024
HC-KAR
CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE I. A. 8 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
IN O. S. NO. 3540 OF 2018 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE -F).
IN WP NO. 13566/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI NAVEEN R
S/O RAMAKRISHNA R P
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT N 260, FERNS RESIDENCY
KOTHANUR,
BANGALORE-560077.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI ROHAN STEVE SALIAN
AGED MAJOR,
S/O LATE PRAVEEN KUMAR SALIAN,
R/AT FLAT NO.301, 302, 402,
MONTE TABOR, BDS NAGAR
KOTHNUR, BANGALORE-560 077.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUMAN K S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE TRIAL
COURT I.E., THE HONORABLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE
CCH-67 BENGALURU TO ADJUDICATE THE MONEY RECOVERY
SUIT IN OS NO. 3540/2018 WITHIN AN OUTER TIME LIMIT OF
THREE MONTHS.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43026
WP No. 28066 of 2025
C/W WP No. 13566 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition No.28066/2025 is filed by the defendant in O.S. No.3540/2018 challenging the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67) on I.A. No.8 filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the stage of the case and to permit the defendant to file his written statement. The said application having been dismissed by the Trial Court, has perforced the defendant to present this petition to set aside the said order.
3. The connected writ petition No.13566/2024 is filed by the plaintiff in the very same suit seeking expeditious disposal of the original suit, which is filed for recovery of money and contending that the defendant is deliberately protracting the proceedings for no rhyme or reason and seeking to prescribe an outer limit of three months for disposal of the suit.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43026 WP No. 28066 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13566 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. Since both petitions arise out of the very same suit and involve common questions, they are taken up together for disposal.
5. The defendant filed I.A. No.8 under Section 151 of CPC. The records reveal that the defendant was initially placed ex-parte. Though the defendant had filed a vakalath, he did not file the written statement and consequently, the suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred Misc. Petition No.840/2022 seeking permission of the Court to set aside the said decree and to permit him to file a written statement and take it on record and to contest the matter on merits. The said petition was allowed and the suit was restored in its original file.
7. It is seen that the defendant had filed two Miscellaneous Petitions. The first one, in Misc. Petition No.655/2019, was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, and the suit was restored. However, as the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:43026 WP No. 28066 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13566 of 2024 HC-KAR written statement was not filed, the suit came to be decreed. Thereafter, since the defendant again did not file the written statement, the suit once again came to be decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed another Miscellaneous Petition, which as stated earlier is Misc. Petition No.840/2022. The second Miscellaneous Petition was also allowed and pursuant to which the defendant filed the present I.A. No.8. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the said application.
8. The Trial Court has relying upon the judgment in the case of SHANKARAM SINGH VS. ELECTION TRIBUNAL, reported in AIR 1955 SC 425, stating that when an ex-parte decree is set aside, the defendant cannot be relegated back to the position prior to the date of hearing of the suit.
9. He would be debarred from filing any written statement in the suit. Therefore, the Trial Court did not appreciate the contentions put forth by the defendant and negatived the same, and rejected the application. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:43026 WP No. 28066 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13566 of 2024 HC-KAR
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is present through video conferencing. He fairly submits that he has no objection to this petition being allowed by imposing costs and with a condition that the petitioner- defendant shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
11. The said submission is placed on record.
12. Without adverting much to the merits of the case, and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that he has no objection, as he intends to secure an order on the merits expeditiously rather than by way of an ex-parte order which may once again emanate into an appeal on the very same ground of not providing an opportunity, he agrees to this petition being allowed and the Trial Court may accept the written statement of the defendant.
13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant and the respondent-plaintiff, and is of the opinion that the matter deserves to be allowed. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:43026 WP No. 28066 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13566 of 2024 HC-KAR
14. In view of the submissions made and for the reason that the petitioner after allowing of the Miscellaneous Petition for restoration of the suit, has filed the present application along with his written statement, this Court is of the opinion that once the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree is allowed in the Miscellaneous Petition, an opportunity deserves to be given to the defendant to put forth his defence.
15. Under the circumstances, the defence by way of written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant requires to be accepted by the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall thereafter proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
16. In the connected petition, the plaintiff is before this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the suit in a time-bound manner within an outer limit of three months, as the suit is filed by him for recovery of money. It is contended that the defendant is deliberately protracting the proceedings, as seen from the order noted -8- NC: 2025:KHC:43026 WP No. 28066 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13566 of 2024 HC-KAR hereinabove, two petitions were filed to set aside the ex-parte decree, which shows callousness of the defendant in prosecuting the case, as she has not shown any diligence in prosecuting the case further.
17. Under the circumstances, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also requires to be taken note of and are accepted for the purpose of ensuring expeditious disposal of the suit.
18 . In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I have passed the following:
ORDER
1. The writ petition No.28066/2025 filed by the defendant is allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 14.08.2022 passed on I.A. No.8 in O.S. No.3540/2018 by the Trial Court is hereby set aside.
3. Consequently, I.A. No.8 is allowed.
The defendant is permitted to file the written statement. The Trial court shall -9- NC: 2025:KHC:43026 WP No. 28066 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13566 of 2024 HC-KAR accept the same and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.
4. The writ petition No.13566/2024 filed by the plaintiff is allowed..
5. The learned LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67) is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, within an outer limit of three months. from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. It is made clear that, the Trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary costs for unnecessary adjournments if any taken by the defendant.
7. The petition is filed by the defendant is allowed subject to payment on cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid on the next date of hearing, which shall be a condition precedent for proceeding further in the matter.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55