High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petitions in Land Dispute Case — Upholds Trial Court's Order Refusing to Set Aside Ex Parte Decree. Court holds that the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for their absence and that the trial court's discretion under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was properly exercised.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD

Admin

2026-05-18 12:30:03

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two civil revision petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the petitioners, who were defendants in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the respondents. The suit was decreed ex parte on 21.12.2009 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak, in Miscellaneous Application Nos.43/1998 and 26/2002. The petitioners filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, which were dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the applications as the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for their absence. The court noted that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is narrow and does not allow re-appreciation of evidence unless there is a jurisdictional error. The court found no such error and dismissed the revision petitions, confirming the trial court's order.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Order IX Rule 13 - Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree - Sufficient Cause - The petitioners sought to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a suit for partition and separate possession. The trial court dismissed the applications holding that the petitioners failed to prove sufficient cause for their non-appearance. The High Court in revision upheld the trial court's order, noting that the discretion exercised by the trial court was not perverse or illegal. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 - Revision - Scope - The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to examining whether the subordinate court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The court found no such error in the trial court's order. (Paras 1-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, and whether the High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC should interfere with that order.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed both civil revision petitions, confirming the trial court's order dated 21.12.2009 dismissing the applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

Law Points

Order IX Rule 13 CPC
Section 115 CPC
Sufficient cause for setting aside ex parte decree
Discretion of trial court
Scope of revision under Section 115 CPC

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 57

CRP No. 1071 of 2010 & CRP No. 1073 of 2010

2024-02-05

V. Srishananda

Smt. Pallavi Pachhapure for Sri. F.V. Patil (for petitioners), Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni for R2-R4, Sri. V.R. Datar for R1 & R5

Siddappa Gurusiddappa Dandin and others

Gadigeppa Allappa Hulikatti and others

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision petitions against dismissal of applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte decree in a partition suit.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to set aside the ex parte decree passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.43/1998 and 26/2002.

Filing Reason

Petitioners were defendants in a suit for partition and separate possession; the suit was decreed ex parte, and their applications to set aside the decree were dismissed.

Previous Decisions

The trial court dismissed the applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 21.12.2009.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order in revision under Section 115 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they had sufficient cause for their absence and that the ex parte decree should be set aside. Respondents contended that the petitioners failed to prove sufficient cause and that the trial court's order was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court's discretion under Order IX Rule 13 CPC should not be interfered with in revision under Section 115 CPC unless there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for their absence.

Judgment Excerpts

The trial court has exercised its discretion properly and there is no illegality or material irregularity in the order. The revision petitions are devoid of merits and are dismissed.

Procedural History

The suit for partition was decreed ex parte. Petitioners filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which were dismissed on 21.12.2009. Petitioners then filed civil revision petitions under Section 115 CPC before the High Court.