Partly allowed

K.N. Raghavendra v. K.T.Narayanashetty

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2024CRP/292/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and quashed the lower court orders that dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. The Court held that despite lack of medical evidence, the plaintiffs' claim over property warranted a liberal interpretation of sufficient cause, and the suit was restored.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; suit OS No.30/2009 restored to file; parties directed to appear on 18.09.2024; costs of Rs.5,000 imposed on plaintiff.

K.N. Raghavendra Vs K.T.Narayanashetty — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:33467 CRP No. 292 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 292 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K.N. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O K.T. NARAYANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. RUKMINI, D/O NARAYANASHETTY, W/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KOPPA VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S.A, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

K.T. NARAYANASHETTY,

¶15

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

S/O LATE MYSORE KEMPASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶17

C/O K. SIDDAIAH, D-198, 9TH CROSS, SWARNASANDRA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶18

SMT. GUNDAMMA, W/O LATE K.N. SUBBASHETTY, (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS) THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 7 TREATED THEM AS LRS OF SMT. GUNDAMMA.

¶19

M.S. SATHYANARAYANA, S/O LATE K.N. SUBBASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33467 CRP No. 292 of 2018

¶21

M.S. HARISHA, S/O LATE K.N. SUBBASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.46, LAKSHMI JANARDHAN TEMPLE STREET, OLD TOWN, MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

¶23

M.S. CHANDRAKALA, W/O V. RAMESH, D/O LATE K.N. SUBBASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.32, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 057.

¶24

M.S. NIRMALA, W/O YOGESH, D/O LATE K.N. SUBBASHETTY, RESIDENT OF MANDYA ROAD, K.M. DODDI, MADDUR TALUK - 571 428.

¶25

G.S. PADMA, W/O LATE M.S. SOMASHEKHAR, D/O LATE K.N. SUBBASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.148/CM, 2ND CROSS, HOSAHALLI EXTENSION, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶26

R. VENKATESH, S/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, C/O BENNE LINGAIAH,

¶27

6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SHANKARAPURA, OLD M.C.ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERESHA K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6 AND R8; R7 IS SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2020, R3 TO R7 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R2)

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33467 CRP No. 292 of 2018

¶29

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2018 PASSED IN MA NO.18/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED IN MIS.NO.51/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANDYA. DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 9 OF CPC. TO RESTORE THE SUIT IN OS NO.30/2009.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.30/2009 seeking relief by way of declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants entered an appearance and submitted their written statement. Plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1 and partially cross-examined. However, PW1 subsequently failed to appear before the Trial Court for further cross-examination. Consequently, the Trial Court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution due to the absence of the plaintiff.

¶34

Following the dismissal, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking restoration of the suit. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the petitioners had failed to show sufficient cause for their non-appearance at the scheduled hearing.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:33467 CRP No. 292 of 2018

¶38

In the present writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Plaintiff No.2 (PW1) was unable to appear for further cross-examination before the Trial Court as she had been pregnant and had recently delivered a baby at the time. Due to these personal circumstances, she could not present herself in court. The counsel contended that these reasons constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance, and thus, the Trial Court should have restored the suit. The petitioners pray for the setting aside of the Trial Court's order and seek the restoration of the suit.

¶39

The learned counsel for the respondents argued in opposition, asserting that the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC. He submitted that the petitioners had failed to produce any convincing evidence to substantiate their claims and argued that there was no reason for the Court to interfere with the Trial Court's decision.

¶40

After carefully considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, and upon reviewing the records, it is evident that Plaintiff No.1 is the brother of Plaintiff No.2, and Plaintiff No.2 is a housewife who was examined as PW1. She was partially cross-examined, and the matter was then set down for further cross-examination. The petitioners have argued that the non-appearance of PW1 was due to Plaintiff No.2 giving birth to a child, which purportedly prevented her from attending court. However, no medical records or documentation were provided to substantiate the claim that her absence was directly due to childbirth.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33467 CRP No. 292 of 2018

¶42

The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.02.2017, and the petitioners filed the application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC for restoration of the suit on 22.04.2017. Thus, there was a delay of only 60 days in filing the restoration application. Given the relatively short delay and the fact that the petitioners are asserting their claim over the suit property, which involves questions of title, the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution would significantly and adversely affect their legal rights. In such circumstances, the Court ought to be inclined towards a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause," particularly when the petitioners' rights over immovable property are at stake.

¶43

In light of the above considerations, the principles of natural justice would be better served by allowing the petitioners an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case, as the restoration of the suit would not unduly prejudice the defendants. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The * petition is allowed.

¶46

(ii) The impugned Order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in M.A. No.18/2017 and also the Order dated 25.02.2017 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya in Mis. No.51/2013 are hereby quashed.

¶47

(iii) The suit in OS No.30/2009 is restored to its' file.

¶48

Deleted vide chamber order dated 30.09.2024

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:33467 CRP No. 292 of 2018

¶51

(iv) The plaintiff and defendants shall appear before the I Additional Senior ivil Judge and CJM, Mandya on 18.09.2024 without awaiting further notice.

¶52

(v) This Order is subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/payable to the defendant on or before the next date of hearing.

¶53

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶54

SNC

K.N. Raghavendra v. K.T.Narayanashetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N. Raghavendra v. K.T.Narayanashetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Aruna a L Vs the Authorized Officer

T K Vasudevan Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank

Sri. M. H. Uma Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Anand S/O Dasharath Kullur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Haleema Begum Vs the State of Karnataka

H. B. Devaraj Vs H. K. Shivakumar