Allowed¶39

B Subbaraja v. K Ramamurthy

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2026RFA/515/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RFA No. 515 of 2023 (PAR); decided 23.06.2026 by Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. B. Subbaraja (appellant/defendant) v. K. Ramamurthy (respondent). Regular First Appeal under S. 96 CPC against order dated 28.03.2022 in FDP No.163/2017 (final decree proceedings) accepting the 2nd Commissioner's report and directing drawing of the decree in the defendant's absence; appeal allowed, order set aside, matter remanded to FDP Court for re-hearing on the 2nd Commissioner's report; opportunity of hearing / natural justice; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Regular First Appeal allowed; order dated 28.03.2022 in FDP No.163/2017 set aside; matter remanded to the FDP Court to re-hear both parties on the 2nd Commissioner's report and pass appropriate orders as per law; no order as to costs. ¶39

B Subbaraja Vs K Ramamurthy — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.03.2022 passed in FDP No.163/2017, accepting the 2nd Commissioner's report and directing the drawing of the decree in the absence of the appellant/defendant, should be set aside and the matter remanded so that the appellant/defendant can make his submissions on the 2nd Commissioner's report.

¶31

Court's answer

Since the defendant/appellant was not present when the FDP Court passed the order directing the drawing of the decree after accepting the 2nd Commissioner's report, it is appropriate that one more opportunity be given to the appellant/defendant to make his submission on the 2nd Commissioner's report.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

By reserving liberty, the matter is remanded to the FDP Court, and accordingly the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶36

Key takeaways

The order dated 28.03.2022 passed in FDP No.163/2017 by the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under S. 96 CPC against the order dated 28.03.2022 in FDP No.163/2017 (XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru), whereby the FDP Court accepted the 2nd Commissioner's report, allotted Schedule-I to the plaintiff and Schedule-II to the defendant, and directed the drawing of the decree in the absence of the defendant/appellant — Held: since the defendant/appellant was not present when the order directing the drawing of the decree was passed, one more opportunity is to be given to him to make his submission on the 2nd Commissioner's report; the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the FDP Court to re-hear both parties on the 2nd Commissioner's report and pass appropriate orders as per law; no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:31083 RFA No. 515 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.515 OF 2023 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B. SUBBARAJA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE PAPANNA GUPTA, RESIDING AT NO.11/1, 1^ST FLOOR, 6^TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 028.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MAKAM NAGARAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS 1. K. RAMAMURTHY, KUMAR N AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, Location: HIGH S/O LATE K. SUBBA RAMAIAH SETTY, COURT OF KARNATAKA RESIDING AT NO.11/1, GROUND FLOOR, 6^TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, TATA SILK FARM, BANGALORE – 560 028.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. GANESH K. N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2022 PASSED

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:31083 RFA No. 515 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

IN FDP NO.163/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant calling in question the order dated 28.03.2022 passed in FDP No.163/2017 by the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru¹ , thereby the FDP Court is directed the drawing of the decree in the absence of appellant/defendant.

¶25

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the FDP Court.

¶26

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the FDP Court’ for short

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:31083 RFA No. 515 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

It is the grievance of the appellant/defendant

¶31

that during consideration of the 2^nd Commissioner’s report, the appellant/defendant was not present; therefore, in his absence, the 2^nd Commissioner’s report was considered, which prejudiced the appellant/defendant. Hence, the only prayer of the defendant is that the appellant/defendant be given an opportunity to make his submissions on the 2^nd Commissioner’s report and therefore, prays to remand the matter.

¶32

The FDP Court by the order dated 28.03.2022 accepted the 2^nd Commissioner’s report and allotted Schedule-I to the plaintiff and Schedule-II property was allotted to the defendant. It is also observed that the defendant in the said proceedings, who is the appellant herein, was absent. Therefore, when the order directing the drawing of the decree was passed, the defendant/appellant was not present. Hence, it is appropriate that one more opportunity be given to the appellant/defendant to make his submission on the 2^nd

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:31083 RFA No. 515 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Commissioner’s report. By reserving liberty, the matter is remanded to the FDP Court. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶37