Smt Gayathri a Vs Sri v Chandrudu

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH ANNX-A THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH- ON IA NOS. 7 AND 8 IN OS NO. 7585/2014). AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.7 and 8 in O.S.No.7585/2014 by the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the petitioner/ defendant No.4 is before this Court.

¶26

The facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein filed O.S.No.7585/2014 seeking specific performance of the

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31977 WP No. 36968 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

agreement of sale dated 11.05.2024. After service of summons, when defendant No.4 failed to appear before the Court, she was set ex parte and the suit was decreed in her absence. The petitioner/defendant No.4 filed I.A.No.7 under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order, and I.A.No.8 under Section 148 of CPC. It is the case of the petitioner that she came to know about the pendency of the suit only during the inspection conducted by the Court Commissioner in the final decree proceedings in FDP.No.171/2019. Immediately upon gaining the knowledge, the petitioner filed applications under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC and Section 148 of CPC on 19.04.2024. The trial Court rejected both the applications on 21.11.2025. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.4 is before this Court.

¶30

The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the applications. It is contended before the trial Court that she got married in the year 2001 and has been living in her matrimonial home since then. In view of the partition suit filed by her against the defendant, they are not on speaking terms, and therefore the institution of the suit was not brought to her

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31977 WP No. 36968 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

notice. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in charge of the suit schedule property and have deliberately not prosecuted the case before the Court with diligence. It is stated that she came to know about the present suit when she accompanied the commissioner appointed in the final decree proceedings in pursuance of the decree in O.S.No.7118/2014. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.4 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have colluded with each other and filed the present application. The trial Court observed that the record of the Court clearly shows that summons was served upon the defendant by way of paper publication on 24.03.2016. Defendant No.4 did not appear on the said date and accordingly, she was placed ex-parte. It is clear that defendant No.4 has not appeared before the trial Court for nearly 8 years and has now come up with the present application. The plaintiff has offered the explanation that after her marriage, she was residing in her matrimonial home and that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 allegedly colluded with one another. The explanation offered by defendant No.4 is vague and unsubstantiated and therefore does not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. As per the records, the substituted service was duly served

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31977 WP No. 36968 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

upon defendant No.4, which carries a presumption of valid service. Defendant No.4 has failed to rebut the said presumption by giving valid reasons for non-appearance. Therefore, the trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff has failed to give sufficient cause for non-appearance for 8 years and accordingly rejected the applications.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC to recall the ex-parte order when the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause for her nonappearance. It is submitted that the Apex Court and this Court have consistently held that the expression “sufficient cause” under the CPC must receive a liberal construction to advance justice rather than defeat it. It is submitted that the trial Court adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach in considering the applications. It is submitted that the findings of the Court are contrary to law and facts. The trial Court failed to appreciate that she has been residing in her matrimonial home since 2001.

¶38

The service of summons at the address of the suit scheduled property was wholly ineffective and did not constitute valid

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:31977 WP No. 36968 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

service under law. It is submitted that when the petitioner has shown bonafide reasons, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ plaintiff submits that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the applications, which did not contain any reasons, and the delay of 8 years cannot be condoned on the grounds raised by the petitioner. The trial Court had rightly dismissed the applications, and there are no grounds to interfere.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed for specific performance. The respondents in the suit are the brothers and sister, i.e., the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, in view of the disputes between the family members, she has instituted another suit and she was not on talking terms with other family members. She was married in the year 2001 and has since been staying in her matrimonial home. It is the fact that she is not residing at the said address and village, where the notices were sent, and the institution of the suit strengthens the case of the petitioner herein that there was no

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:31977 WP No. 36968 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

valid notice to her. The only ground considered by the trial Court is that substituted service of notice is the deemed service of notice. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where there are bonafide reasons for the petitioner not to appear before the trial Court, and considering the fact that her valuable rights are involved in the said property, this Court deems it appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioner so that it would put a quietus to the litigation. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The order dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.7 and 8 in O.S.No.7585/2014 by the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside , on the condition that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to the respondents.

¶51