Karnataka High Court
Shri. Shidaray S/O Ramappa Devaraddi vs Shri.Siddappa S/O Dundappa Devaraddi on 17 November, 2015
Author: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION No.111913/2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SHIDARAY
S/O RAMAPPA DEVARADDI
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:MASARGUPPI
TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAAVI
2. SHRI.VASANT
S/O RAMAPPA DEVARADDI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:DEVARADDERAHATTI
POST:MURAGUNDI
TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAVI
3. SHRI SHRIMANT
S/O RAMAPPA DEVARADDI
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:DEVARADDERAHATTI
POST:MURAGUNDI
TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAVI
-2-
4. SHRI BASAVARAJ
S/O RAMAPPA DEVARADDI
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:DEVARADDERAHATTI
POST:MURAGUNDI
TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAVI
... PETITIONERS
(BY MR. SIDHANTI PRASAD RAMESHRAO AND
MR.SAMEER G. KOLLI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SHRI.SIDDAPPA
S/O DUNDAPPA DEVARADDI
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:AGRL. & SERVICE
R/O:DEVARADDERAHAATI
TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAVI
... RESPONDENT
(BY MRS. REKHA PATIL FOR MR. M G NAGANURI, ADV.
FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED:22.09.2015, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATHANI IN O.S.NO.114/2014 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER SEEKING PERMISSION FOR FILING OF
WRITTEN STATEMENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2015, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Athani, whereby the learned Civil Judge has rejected the application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 R/w. Section 151 CPC, requesting the learned trial Court to permit the petitioner to file his written statement.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are, that the respondent herein, Mr.Siddappa, filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of contract, praying that the petitioners-defendants be directed by the Court to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property, by accepting the balance consideration amount and, to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property, in accordance with the agreement of sale dated 06.06.2011.
3. Despite the service of summons upon the petitioners- defendants, they did not appear before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the learned trial Court had no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against the petitioners. However, on 29.10.2014, -4- the petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, for setting aside the ex-parte order. The said application was allowed and the petitioners were permitted to join the proceedings. The learned trial Court granted a number of opportunities to the petitioners to file their written statement. But the petitioners failed to do so. Therefore, on 29.6.2015 their right to file the written statement was finally closed, subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC before the learned trial Court for setting aside its order dated 29.06.2015 and to permit them to file the written statement. However, by order dated 22.09.2015, the said application has been dismissed. Hence this petition before this Court.
4. Mr. Sindhanti Prasad Ramesh Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that since the petitioners were busy in collecting the necessary documents, thus written statement could not be filed within the stipulated period of thirty days from the date of service of summons or sixty days, which could be extended by the Court. But according to the learned counsel, -5- there was no mala fide intention and it was due to the fact that the petitioners were busy in collecting the documents. Secondly, the right to file a written statement is a valuable right, which should not be closed by the learned trial Court.
5. On the other hand, Mrs. Rekha Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent, has pleaded that, in their application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, the petitioners have not pointed out as to which documents they were trying to procure, and from whom they were trying to procure the said documents. In fact a vague application has been filed by them. Secondly, though repeatedly opportunities were given to them and despite the lapse of one year, the written statement was not filed. Therefore, the learned trial Court was certainly justified in denying them the right to file the written statement. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
-6-
7. Under the amended CPC, a written statement has to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of suit summons. Interestingly, despite the service of summons, initially the petitioners did not even bother to appear before the trial Court. Thus, the trial Court had no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against the petitioners. Once an application for setting aside the ex-parte order was filed, in its generosity and liberalism, the learned trial Court allowed the said application and permitted the petitioners to proceed further with the suit.
8. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned trial Court has given eight opportunities to the petitioners for filing their written statement, namely on 27.10.2014, 05.11.2014, 12.01.2015, 20.01.2015, 04.02.2015, 02.03.2015, 18.04.2015 and lastly on 29.06.2015. It is, indeed, trite to state that a litigant has to be vigilant about his own rights and interest. A litigant cannot expect the Court to wait endlessly for him to file his written statement. According to the amended CPC, the defendant is required to file his written statement within thirty days from the date -7- of service of the summons. At best, the said time period can be extended by a further period of sixty days, but no more. Already the learned trial Court has given a period of almost one year to the petitioners to file their written statement. Yet, the petitioners did not wake up to their responsibilities towards the learned trial Court.
9. A bare perusal of the application filed under Order VIII, Rule 9 CPC clearly reveals, that the petitioners had mentioned that much time had been taken for collecting the documents and the same had caused the delay in filing the written statement. However, the petitioner does not mention as to what documents were being collected by him and from whom? Therefore, the application is bereft of any details. Merely if a vague statement has been made without any particulars, obviously the said vague statement cannot be accepted as a gospel truth by the learned trial Court. An application of this nature is merely an excuse, rather than a justification for the lapse committed by the petitioners.
10. Although it is true that the right to file a written statement is a valuable one, but the said right had to be exercised by the -8- petitioners within the stipulated period laid down by the law. In case the defendant seeks further extension of the time period, he/she is required to give cogent reasons for the delay. However, in the present case, no such cogent reasons are forthcoming from the petitioners.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
12. This petition, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/-