Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O Kadsiddappa Sajjan vs Mallappa S/O Shivayogappa Sajjan Since ... on 4 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1035
MFA No. 201407 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201407 OF 2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
MALLAPPA S/O KADSIDDAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 214.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINAYAK APTE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE MALLAPPA S/O SHIVAYOGAPPA SAJJAN,
Location: HIGH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. GURUBAI W/O MALLAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
R/O. TALIKOTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA,
NEAR POLICE STATION TALIKOTI-586 107.
RAMESHA S/O MALLAPPA SAJJAN,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
2. ANNAPURNA @ SHARANAMMA
W/O RAMESH SAJJAN,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1035
MFA No. 201407 of 2021
HC-KAR
R/O. BASAVNAGAR, AT PO. TALIKOTI,
TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 107.
3. CHARMY D/O RAMESH SAJJAN,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
MINOR REP. BY M/G NATURAL MOTHER,
ANNAPURNA @ SHARANAMMA W/O RAMESH SAJJAN,
R/O. BASAVANAGAR, AT PO. TALIKOTI,
TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586214.
4. BASAVARAJ S/O NAGAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. B.B. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI-586 214.
5. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O NAGAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. B.B. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI-586 218.
6. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O NAGAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. B.B. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI-586 218.
7. SHANKARAPPA S/O KADSIDDAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. B.B. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI-586 218.
8. BASAVARAJ S/O KADASIDDAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. B.B. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI-586 218.
9. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O MALLAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
R/O. B.B. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI-586 218.
10. GURUSIDDAWWA D/O CHANDRASHEKHAR SAJJAN,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O B.B. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI-586 218.
11. AKKANAGAMMA D/O KADASIDDAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. B.B. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI-586 218.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1035
MFA No. 201407 of 2021
HC-KAR
12. SHARADABAI D/O KADSIDDAPPA SAJJAN,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL/H.H. WORK,
R/O. B.B. INGALAGI, TQ. SINDAGI-586 218.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED
R3 IS MINOR UNDER GUARDIAN OF R2;
V/O DTD.08.12.2022 NOTICE TO R4 TO R12 IS
DISPENSED WITH )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43 RULE 1(D) OF
CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE TRIAL
COURT AND ALLOW THE CIVIL MISC CASE NO. 2/2012 BY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2021 ON THE FILE
OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SINDAGI AND FURTHER
SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.06.2011 PASSED IN OS NO. 268/2007 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SINDAGI BY GIVING
OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CONTEST THE SAID
SUIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1035
MFA No. 201407 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This appeal is preferred by the defendant No.13 in O.S.No.268/2007 assailing the order dated 06.02.2011 in Civil Misc. No.2/2012, dismissing the petition.
3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are that the suit in O.S.No.268/2007 filed by plaintiff, seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. On service of notice, the defendant No.13 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. After full fledged trial, the Trial Court decreed the suit on 30.06.2011. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.13 has preferred Civil Misc. No.2/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi and contended that, defendant No.13 has not contested the matter on merits by adducing evidence and therefore sought for setting aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.268/2007. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1035 MFA No. 201407 of 2021 HC-KAR The said petition was contested by the respondents therein. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its Order dated 06.02.2021, dismissed the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.13 has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Sri. Vinayak Apte, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1(a).
5. It is argued by Sri. Vinayak Apte, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that defendant No.13 has not contested the matter on merits and also no evidence was adduced by defendant No.13 before the Trial Court in O.S.No.305/2004 which came to be re-numbered as O.S.No.268/2007 and therefore contended that the Judgment and Decree is nothing but an ex-parte Judgment and Decree and therefore sought for interference in the matter, as the competent Court in Civil Misc. No.2/2012 has not properly appreciated the material on record.
6. Per contra, Sri. Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1(a) submitted that -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1035 MFA No. 201407 of 2021 HC-KAR defendant No.13 who is the appellant before this Court in the present appeal, has filed the written statement and contested the matter on merits in the suit and therefore the impugned order passed in Civil Misc. No.2/2012 is just and proper and the same does not call for interference of this Court.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the petition papers would make it clear that originally O.S.No.305/2004 was filed by plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief before the competent Civil Court at Vijayapura and thereafter, the case was transferred to the competent Court at Sindagi, in O.S.No.268/2007. It is also forthcoming from para 3 in the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.268/2007 that the appellant herein being defendant No.13 has filed the detailed written statement and contested the matter on merits.
8. In that view of the matter, as defendant No.13 has filed written statement and also adduced evidence and after the transfer of the suit, the competent Court has issued notice and he has entered appearance pursuant of the transfer of the case -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1035 MFA No. 201407 of 2021 HC-KAR and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, there is no perversity in the impugned order passed by the competent Court in Civil Misc. No.2/2012.
9. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT:PK