Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. Santoshji Rao vs Smt. Yeshodha Bai @ Jayamma on 3 March, 2016
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
WRIT PETITION No.10178/2016(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI. K. SANTOSHJI RAO
S/O. LATE KHANDOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 63, 1 MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
ASWATH NAGAR, SANJAY NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 094.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. YESHODHA BAI @ JAYAMMA
W/O. VITAL RAO,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT YELLAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
(HOUSE OF SIMEYENNE MUNIYAPPA)
NAGAWARA PALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560093
2
2. SMT. THULASI BAI
W/O. LATE G. GOVINDA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT YELLAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
(HOUSE OF SIMEYENNE MUNIYAPPA),
NAGAWARA PALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560093
3. SMT. SARASWATHI BAI
W/O. LATE K. RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 66, 2ND CROSS,
ASWATHNAGAR, SANJAY NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 094.
4. SRI. K. MUKUNDA RAO
S/O. LATE KHANDOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 600, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND
GOVERNMENT SCHOOL KALKERE,
PUNYA BHOOMI EXTENSION,
HORAMAVU POST
BANGALORE-560 016.
5. SRI. V. LAXMANA RAO KALE
S/O. LATE VITTAL RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO. 77, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
ASWATHNAGAR, SANJAY NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 094.
6. SRI. M. BALAKRISHNA ALIUS BALU
S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
3
R/AT NO. 98TH CROSS,
KRISHNAPPA BLOCK,
GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
7. SRI. N. RAJU
S/O. SRI. G.N. RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 200-B, NEW BEL ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 054.
8. SRI. A.C. LOKESH
S/O. SRI. A. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1250, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
VISHWESHWARAIAH ENCLAVE,
BANGALORE-560 015.
9. SRI. G.R. RAMESH
S/O. G.N. RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 30, COPD MET LAYOUT,
R.M.V. 2ND STAGE, 6TH CROSS,
BANGALORE-560 094.
10. SRI. UMESH B
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 6, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
R.M.V. STAGE,
DEVASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560 094.
4
11. SMT. SHYLAJA BAI
D/O. SHIVAJI RAO GAIKWAD,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO. 62, 1ST CROSS,
2ND MAIN, ASWATHNAGAR,
SANJAY NAGAR,
BANGALORE-50 094.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.21.1.2015 IN
I.A.NO.08/2014 U/S.151 OF CPC IN
O.S.NO.5320/2009 AT ANNEX-C PASSED BY TRIAL
COURT, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is directed against the order dated 21.1.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge in I.A.No.8 & 9 in OS 5320/2009 whereby, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application for permitting filing of the written statement.
5
2. I have heard Mr.Zameer Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, there was default on the part of the Advocate in not filing the written statement. It was submitted that, if the written statement is not permitted to be filed, it would cause great injustice. A lenient view may be taken in the aspects of filing the written statement since period of 90 days is in any case over. Learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide by conditions which may be imposed by this Court and therefore this Court may interfere.
4. Had it been a few days delay and the rights of the parties had not altered, the matter might stand on different footing and different consideration by taking lenient view. However, in the present case, it is not an ordinary delay. The written statement was to be filed in 6 the year 2009. It is sought to be filed in December 2014 and pressed for permission in 2015. Further, peculiar circumstances are that, after the written statement having been not filed, PW.1 is examined and even the cross-examination is also over of PW.1. The evidence of the parties are concluded including that of defendant no.1 and the matter is at the stage of argument. At that stage, the written statement was sought to be filed.
5.The Civil Court has taken note of the aforesaid aspects and in the said peculiar circumstances, the permission to file written statement is not granted. In my view, as there are peculiar facts of delay of about 5 years and further, peculiar facts altering the rights of the parties that the witness on behalf of the plaintiff as well as on behalf of the defendant are already examined and evidence is concluded and the matter is at the stage of argument. It cannot be said that discretionary power 7 exercised by the Civil Court is erroneous on the face of it nor it can be said to be any jurisdictional error committed by the Civil Court.
6. Under the circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the order of the Civil Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sk/-