Appeal against an ex parte decree in a permanent injunction suit where the defendant was never personally served with summons; notice had been served only on his counsel who filed a caveat. Holding such service insufficient and violative of natural justice, the High Court set aside the decree and remanded for fresh disposal within nine months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:34971 RFA No. 2878 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2878 OF 2025 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.31/B, GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD R.V. COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU – 560 059.
Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O KRISHNAYYA.B AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.103, 6TH CROSS, CONCORD LAYOUT, RAJKUMAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 059.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
AND:
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA CHILLARGE AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS RETIRED JOINT DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY, BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, R/AT NO, 8-9-844, MATHRUSADAN, NEW HOUSING CPLONY, NEW LAKSHMI TEMPLE, BIDAR - 585 401.
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.34, PADMA NILAYA, M.E.G LAYOUT, NARAYNAPURA, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 016.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N B NIJALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.25254/2024 ON THE FILE OF LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
NC: 2026:KHC:34971 RFA No. 2878 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
NC: 2026:KHC:34971 RFA No. 2878 of 2025
HC-KAR
without issuing notice or summons to the defendant, the Trial Court placed the defendant ex-parte on the observation that a caveat notice had been served on the counsel for the defendant. Consequently, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial and passed the impugned ex-parte decree.
HC-KAR
passed the decree, which requires no interference by this Court.
the order sheet maintained in O.S No.25254/2024 which
HC-KAR
reflects that on 18.03.2024, the defendant / caveator filed a caveat through his advocate. When the notice was issued to the caveator, it was returned unserved. Therefore, on 03.04.2024, the Trial Court ordered that the notice be served on the counsel for the caveator instead of serving the caveator/defendant personally. It is further observed that, on 18.04.2024 upon a memo filed by the plaintiff, notice was served on the counsel for the caveator. On the basis of this service, the Trial court held that there was a sufficient service of notice on the defendant but the fact remains that the defendant was not personally served with the notice or summons in the suit.
HC-KAR
not served on the defendant personally. Therefore, placing the defendant as ex-parte is not correct. When the notice was not served on the defendant properly and by placing the defendant as ex-parte and proceeded with the trial and passing the decree amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer point Nos. 1 and 2 in the “ Affirmative ”.
ORDER
by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-73), is hereby set aside.
iii. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
HC-KAR
iv. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 29.07.2026 without expecting notice from the Trial Court.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IA’s, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
UN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether service of notice on the caveator's counsel without personal service on the defendant under Order V Rule 1 CPC constitutes sufficient service to place the defendant ex parte.
Whether the trial court's ex parte judgment and decree required interference.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Muniraju
Raghavendra D.K
Mrs. Geetha K L
Vijayanath Chillarge
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
