SRI. L. VENKATARAMA REDDY v. SRI. B. N. SRIRAMACHANDRA & Ors.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT OR IN THE NATURE OF ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER, WRIT CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER DATED 27-06-2025 ON I.A. NOS. 12 AND 13 MADE IN O.S. NO. 178/2023, PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KOLAR (ITINERATE AT SRINIVASPUR), AS PER ANNEXURE - A. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:928 WP No. 33976 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.Nos.12 and 13 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar (Itinerate at Srinivasapur) dated 27.06.2025, whereby the said applications filed by defendants Nos.1 and 2 permission to file written statement was allowed by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice respondents is dispensed with.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession in relation of his alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. In the first instance, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 having not filed the written statement subsequently filed the aforesaid applications I.A.Nos.12 and 13 for permission to file the written - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:928 WP No. 33976 of 2025 HC-KAR statement, which came to be allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order as under: “Orders on I.A.Nos. 12 & 13 filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 1 under Section 151 of CPC. The defendant No.2 has filed I.A. No.12 seeking permission to file the written statement to contest the case. 2) The defendant No.1 has filed I.A. No.13 seeking permission to file the written statement to contest the case. 3) On the other hand plaintiff has resisted the applications by filing separate objection to IA Nos. 12 and

13. 4) I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned advocates for plaintiff and the above defendants. 5) Following points arise for my consideration.

1. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have made out sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing written statements?

2. What Order? 6) My findings on the above points are as follows:- - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:928 WP No. 33976 of 2025 HC-KAR Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following- REASONS 7) Point No.1: The Applicant/defendant No.2 in his annexed affidavit to I.A. No.12 has stated that the plaintiff has filed the suit on false and frivolous grounds. He could not file his written statement earlier due to collection of documents from concerned authorities. Filing of his written statement is absolutely essential in order to decide real question in controversy between him and the plaintiff. If he is not permitted to file written statement he will be put to great hardship and inconvenience. Non filing of his written statement well in time was due to bonafide reasons and not intentional. 8) The plaintiff has filed objection to the said application and contented that defendant No.2 entered appearance on 28-07-2023. However, defendant No.2 has not filed written statement till 08-11-2024 i.e. for a period of 15 months. The affidavit in support of application does not disclose bonafide reasons for an inordinate delay of 15 months. As per the recent amended provision of CPC, it is mandatory to file written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. Defendant No.2 has not assigned genuine reasons for delay in filing the written statement. The affidavit averments does not disclose due diligence taken to file written statement as per law in a time bound manner. The deliberate inaction and negligence of - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:928 WP No. 33976 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant No.2 in not filing written statement within limitation has to be viewed seriously. As per the order dated 12-01-2024 this court had taken written statement of defendant No.2 as not filed. Thereafter he has not filed any cou application for recalling the order dated 12-01-2024. Hence, the present application is not maintainable under law. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 9) Applicant/Defendant No.1 in his annexed affidavit to L.A. No.13 has stated that due to non availability of some documents pertaining to suit schedule properties he could not able to give instructions to his advocate. Recently he has obtained the said documents. The delay in filing the written statement is purely bona-fide and not intentional. If his application is not allowed, he will be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship. Hence, application. 10) Plaintiff has filed objection the said application and contended that defendant No.1 entered appearance on 02-12-2023. However, defendant No.1 has not filed written statement till 23-11-2024 i.e. for a period of one year. The affidavit in support of application does not disclose bonafide reasons for an inordinate delay of one year. As per the recent amended provision of CPC, it is mandatory to file written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. Defendant No.1 has not assigned genuine reasons for delay in filing the written statement. The affidavit averments does not disclose due diligence taken to file written statement as per law in a time bound - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:928 WP No. 33976 of 2025 HC-KAR manner. The deliberate inaction and negligence of defendant No.1 in not filing written statement within limitation has to be viewed seriously. As per the order dated 15-06-2024 this court had taken written statement of defendant No.1 as not filed. Thereafter he has not filed any application for recalling the order dated 15-06-2024. Hence, the present application is not maintainable under law. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 11) Perused the pleadings, IAs, objections and records placed before this court, the suit is one for partition and separate possession. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed application along with the written statement and prays to take their written statement on board. The entire case of the defendants depend upon the written statement of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. No doubt there is a delay in filing of the written statement, but it cannot be ignored that it is suit for partition and if they are not permitted to file written statement their right of defense will be curtailed. Still evidence is not yet commenced. Hence, at this stage considering the nature of the present suit application is very well maintainable. 12) The delay caused may be compensated by imposing cost. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice and equity, IAs filed by the learned counsels for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 deserves to be allowed by imposing reasonable cost. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:928 WP No. 33976 of 2025 HC-KAR 13) Point No.2: In view of my findings on point No.1, 1 proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A. Nos. 12 and 13 filed under Section 151 of CPC by learned counsels for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are hereby allowed with cost of Rs.400/- each. The written statement filed by learned counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby taken on record.”

4. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be to have resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan and Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477.

5. In the result, I pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:928 WP No. 33976 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.178/2023 as expeditiously as possible. iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52