G. GOPALAKRISHNA Vs. CHARLES RAPHAEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the ex parte decree passed by the learned VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-11) in O.S. No. 3303/2006 dated 10.08.2016. The trial court has placed the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant') ex parte on the ground that summons issued to the defendant has been refused by the defendant.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their ranking before the trial court:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff however disputes the submissions made by learned counsel for the defendant and by referring to the report of the bailiff submits that the defendant having refused to receive the summons cannot seek to set-aside the impugned judgment on the ground of non-service of summons. On the contentions urged by learned counsel for the defendant, touching the merits of the case, learned counsel submits that it is only after filing of this appeal, plaintiff came to know about the sale deed alleged to have obtained by the defendant. Said sale deed was forged and fabricated and hence, the plaintiff has taken steps to prosecute the defendant for perjury by filing a complaint before the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No. 51669/2019 and the same is pending consideration of the criminal Court. With regard to actual possession of the suit schedule property, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that only on the strength of interim order passed by this Court, the defendant began to assert his right over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has inducted the tenants in the suit property and there is ample proof in this regard. Under the said circumstances, without exhausting the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, the defendant is not entitled to maintain this appeal.