KAMAKSHAMMA Vs. RIZWAN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order passed by the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in Misc. No.25059/2019 dtd. 3/12/2022 filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. and restore the judgment and decree passed passed in O.S.No.25020/2008 dtd. 26/2/2019.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the Trial Court committed an error in allowing Misc. No.25059/2019. The counsel would vehemently contend that the defendant though filed written statement through advocate, did not contest the matter and hence, the Trial Court proceeded to pass judgment the decree. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court failed to notice the documents i.e., Exs.D1, D2 and D3, which are the proceedings, memo as well as the final order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.25573/2010 initiated against the very same suit schedule property as well as against the very same plaintiffs. Ex.D3 is the memo filed by the defendant before the High Court that the matter amicably settled outside the Court is clinching evidence that the claim of the defendant in O.S.No.25020/2008 was settled in the year of 2010 itself and thereafter, they remained absent before the Trial Court and the Trial Court proceeded to pass an erroneous order in setting aside the judgment and decree, even though the defendant did not contest the matter.