Writ Petition No. 47776 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4355 WP No. 47776 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 47776 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: H.D.RAMALINGAIAH S/O H P DODAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O VIJAYALAKSHMI KRUPA BEHIND VENKATESHWARA COMPLEX, AMRUTHNAGAR, SIRA ROAD, TUMAKURU – 572 106 …PETITIONER
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. KUMAR K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R.PARAMESHWARAIAH S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O OORUKERE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK – 572 016 2. S.BASAVARAJU S/O LATE SIDDARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 3. SURESH S/O S.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 4. JAGADEESH S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 5. NANDEESH S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4355 WP No. 47776 of 2017 6. RAJESH S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF OORUKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK NOW RESIDING AT C/O P SIDDAPPA, BENAKA NILAYA, R T NAGARA, 2ND MAIN, KOTHI THOPU TUMAKURU – 572 101 (BY SRI. K.N.SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2- SERVED V/O/D 09.07.2024, NOTICE TO R3 TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:07.10.2017 PASSED ON I.A. U/S 151 OF CPC IN O.S.502/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DVN) AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU AT ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC to permit the petitioner/defendant No.6 to file written statement by condoning the delay in O.S.No.502/2006 dated 07.10.2017 by the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) & JMFC, Tumakuru, whereby the trial Court had rejected the I.A., the petitioner/defendant No.6 is before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4355 WP No. 47776 of 2017 2. The respondent No.1 herein who is the plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the contract by directing the defendants to execute regular sale deed pursuant to the sale agreement dated 03.01.1992 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. By order dated 01.08.2017, the I.A. filed by the defendant to set aside the ex-parte order was allowed and he was permitted to contest the suit. On 29.08.2017, at the request of learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.6, time is granted till 04.09.2017 to file the written statement. On 04.09.2017, again time was sought and the time was granted on cost of Rs.300/-. On 12.09.2017, the written statement was not filed and the trial Court has taken it as not filed and posted the case for arguments. Immediately, on 14.09.2017, he has filed an I.A. seeking to file the written statement along with the written statement and that came to be rejected by way of order impugned. 3. While rejecting the I.A. filed by defendant No.6, the trial Court has observed that the perusal of order sheets reveals that in spite of availing sufficient opportunities, the defendant No.6 has not filed the written statement. This case is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4355 WP No. 47776 of 2017 of the year 2006. The grounds made out by defendant No.6 in the I.A. are neither sufficient nor satisfactory and accordingly rejected the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.6 submits that in fact, the suit is of the year 2006 and he was impleaded at a later point of time and when he came to know about an ex-parte order that is passed, he has filed an application on 08.01.2017. That order was set aside and he was permitted to contest the matter. Except on two occasions, he has never sought for time and the trial Court has taken the written statement as not filed and proceeded with the argument. He submits that if the said order is not set aside and he is not permitted to file the written statement, he will be put to lot of hardship. 5. Though notice is served on respondent Nos.2 to 6, there is no representation on their behalf. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has opposed the petition and he submits that the trial Court had rightly rejected the I.A. as defendant No.6 intentionally had not filed the written statement and was dragging on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4355 WP No. 47776 of 2017 proceedings. He submits that in the I.A. filed in support of the application, it is not even stated why the written statement has not been filed and what are the reasons for such delay. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The docket proceedings reveals that the petitioner has asked for adjournment on two occasions for filing the written statement. On one occasion, the Court has granted the permission by imposing cost of Rs.300/- and the next time, when he asked for time, the trial Court has taken the written statement as not filed and posted the matter for argument. The trial Court had observed that it is a suit of the year 2006. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant No.6 came on record in the year 2017. Considering all these aspects and the fact that if the permission is not granted to the petitioner/ defendant No.6 to file the written statement, it would cause lot of prejudice to the defendant No.6 and further, in the substantial interest of the parties and to put a quietus litigation, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order:
Decision
ORDER i. The order passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.502/2006 dated 07.10.2017 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4355 WP No. 47776 of 2017 by the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) & JMFC, Tumakuru, is set aside. ii. I.A. filed by the petitioner is allowed on the condition that he shall pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2