Karnataka High Court
Sri. Santhosh vs Smt. Mahadevamma on 10 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:26454
WP No. 10540 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 10540 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANTHOSH
S/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.888, 6TH CROSS,
13TH MAIN, SRINIVASA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 050
ALSO R/AT NO.19,
7TH CROSS, HOSAKEREHALLI
BASK III STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. YESHU BABA R. MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
Digitally D/O LATE MARISIDDAIAH
signed by AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
SUVARNA T R/AT GOVT LAND AND
ASSESSMENT ON 12/1 AND
Location: HOUSE NO.108
HIGH HOSAKERE HALLI,
COURT OF BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
KARNATAKA BENGLAURU-560 085
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.MEERA H., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.02.2022 in O.S.4937/2018 IA U/S 151 OF CPC 1908 AT
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1908 DATED 18.03.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:26454
WP No. 10540 of 2022
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU AT
ANNEXURE-E1.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR 'DISMISSAL', THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed questioning the order passed in I.A. filed under Section 151 of C.P.C in O.S.No.4937/2018 dated 03.02.2022 by the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court had dismissed the I.A. filed by the defendant to recall the order dated 30.10.2019 and permit the defendant to file the written statement in support of his case.
2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit and the suit is filed for injunction. The trial Court had granted an order of status quo. The defendant having served with the summons failed to file the written statement. Then the trial Court by order dated 30.10.2019 had treated the written statement as null. Then in the month of March 2020, the present application came to be filed for recalling the order dated 30.10.2019. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it is stated that the trial Court had passed an order treating the written statement as nil. The reasons for the delay in filing the -3- NC: 2024:KHC:26454 WP No. 10540 of 2022 written statement was due to the delay in procuring certain documents in support of the case and the said documents are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. Hence, he requires some time to procure them and hand them over to the counsel to prepare the written statement. In spite of his best efforts, the delay has occurred and the same is not intended one and for the reasons beyond his control. It is stated that he has good case on merits.
3. The trial Court had dismissed the said I.A. by order impugned, wherein the Court had observed that the defendant had failed to give reasons or what are the documents that are required and relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the Court had observed that it would be proper to encourage the belief in litigants that the imperative of Order 8 Rule 1 must be adhered to and that only in rare and exceptional cases, will the breach thereof will be condoned. Such an approach by Courts alone can carry forward the legislative intent of avoiding delays or at least in curtailing the delays in the disposal of the suits filed in Courts and -4- NC: 2024:KHC:26454 WP No. 10540 of 2022 accordingly, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the trial Court had failed to grant time beyond 90 days for filing of the written statement. It is stated that the defendant has a genuine cause for not filing the written statement. The trial Court on technicalities ought not to have dismissed the petition. It is stated that the plot of the plaintiff and the defendant are joining plots and two suits are pending between the parties. Unless the defendant is permitted to file the written statement, it would cause lot of hardship to the defendant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the suit is filed in the year 2018 and the defendant has failed to file his written statement and after this I.A. is dismissed, he approached this Court by filing the writ petition and interim order is granted staying all further proceedings in the year 2022. From there on, the petitioner has not even taken any steps to pursue the matter and to get the matter disposed off. Learned counsel submits that this conduct of the defendant speaks volumes about how he wanted to protract the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:26454 WP No. 10540 of 2022 proceedings and to see that no orders are passed on the merits in the said suit. It is submitted that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the I.A. and no grounds are made out seeking interference with the said order passed by the trial Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. It is stated that there is a delay of 129 days from the date of summons and 74 days from the date of filing of the vakalath by the defendant in filing the written statement. The trial Court on 30.10.2019 has treated the written statement as nil and the present I.A. came to be filed on 18.03.2020. This Court has perused the affidavit as well as the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court was perfectly right in holding that there is no reason stated for the said delay and dismissed the petition. It has become a practice that in spite of a particular procedure that is contemplated under the C.P.C., whenever the defendant feels he cannot come up with the written statement and as a matter of practice, without mentioning the reasons, this I.A. is filed. This case is one classic example where the defendant has taken for granted that permission will be granted without giving any -6- NC: 2024:KHC:26454 WP No. 10540 of 2022 reasons for the said delay. The purpose and purport for which a timeline is given would be defeated with these kinds of petitions. As per the procedure, when a particular time frame is fixed, still the Court can condone the same or extend the time provided the valid reasons are there and considering the interest, balancing the interest of both the parties. At the same time, it cannot be granted just for the sake of asking.
7. A suit which is filed by the plaintiff for injunction in the year 2018 is pending till 2024, even after six years, without filing written statement for various reasons, the suit is pending which is mainly contributed by the defendant. Though this Court is of the opinion that the reasons on which the trial Court had passed an order are valid reasons, but looking at the substantial interest of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. The order passed in O.S.No.4937/2018 dated 03.02.2022 by the XXXIV Additional -7- NC: 2024:KHC:26454 WP No. 10540 of 2022 City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside.
ii. The defendant is permitted to file the written statement on the condition that he shall pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards cost to the plaintiff within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
iii. As the suit is of the year 2018, the trial Court shall proceed with the suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without giving unnecessary adjournments.
iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.
v. Pending I.As., if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1