Karnataka High Court
CRP/852/2024 of ASADULLA Vs MOHAMMED MUNAFF on 1 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010636642024 NC: 2026:KHC:47597 CRP No. 852 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 852 OF 2024 (RES) BETWEEN: ASADULLA S/O. SHAIKH AHMED, AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 852 OF 2024 (RES)
BETWEEN:
ASADULLA
S/O. SHAIKH AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O SANTHEPETE BADAWANE,
MASIDI ROAD, 2ND CROSS,
TUMKUR-572 137
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALIPATIL P.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MOHAMMED MUNAFF
S/O. MOHAMMED PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O JAYAPURA MAIN ROAD,
PH COLONY,
TUMKUR-570 008
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED IN
MA NO.16/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR AND ORDER DATED
16.04.2021 PASSED IN MISC.NO.4/2019 AND ALLOW MISC.
NO.4/2019 AND SET ASIDE THE EX PARTE JUDMGENT AND
DECREE DATED 04.08.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.240/2016 ON
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR
DIRECTING THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU
TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO FILE THE WRITTEN
STATEMENT
AND
CONTEST
THE
SUIT
AND
TO
PASS
APPROPRIATE
ORDERS
AFTER
GIVING
SUFFICIENT
OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2021 passed in Misc.No.4/2019 by III-Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The respondent therein has filed a suit for Specific Performance, i.e., O.S.No.240/2016. The petitioner was placed ex parte, and an ex parte judgment and decree were passed on 04.08.2018. Thereafter, execution was filed. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the same on 01.02.2019 and filed the miscellaneous application on
HC-KAR
04.02.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that the notice was not served on him and that the endorsement states it was refused by him. He has never refused the suit summons. It is the case that the plaintiff, in collusion with the postal authorities, has placed such an endorsement. Hence, he sought to condone the delay in filing the same. That was dismissed by the order impugned, wherein the Court observed that the petitioner had not taken steps to examine the persons in the postal department and that a mere denial that the notices were not served on him was insufficient, and accordingly dismissed the miscellaneous application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was unaware of the suit and that this came to his notice only in 2019, when he received notice in the execution petition. Unless and until the petitioner is given an opportunity to contest the matter, it would cause a lot of hardship to the petitioner. The Court below failed to consider these aspects and dismissed the application solely on the ground that the petitioner had not examined the postmaster regarding the service of notice.
HC-KAR
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he paid Rs.15,00,000/- at the time of the agreement, and after the suit was decreed, the remaining amount was paid. It is submitted that the remaining amount was paid in the execution petition. It is submitted that from 2015 to 2026, and after the suit was decreed in 2018, the respondent/plaintiff has not been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree. It is submitted that this miscellaneous was filed in 2019, and thereafter, in 2024, the present petition was filed, and the petitioner is dragging on the proceedings without stating any valid reasons. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the court below.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. An ex parte judgment and decree have been passed by the Court below. According to the petitioner, the notices were not served. He has never received the summons, nor has he refused it. The Court has considered the same and held that the petitioner has not examined anyone from the postal department. The miscellaneous was filed in
HC-KAR
2019, and the present CRP is from 2024. The Decree Holder has not been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree right from 2019. The CRP has been pending before this Court for the last two years.
6. In these circumstances, and balancing the interests of both parties, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The order dated 16.04.2021, passed in Misc.No.4/2019 by the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, is set aside. Consequently, the application is allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent.
ii. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
iii. The trial Court shall dispose of this matter within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
iv. The trial court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments to the petitioner, and the
HC-KAR
petitioner shall cooperate with the trial. If the petitioner fails to cooperate, the court shall proceed with the matter.
v. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58