Partly allowed

Thestate of Karnataka v. Shri. Narayan Ganesh Kamat (Dead)

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2017WP/100352/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that a belated additional written statement filed by the State Government should be allowed on payment of costs, as the delay was expected and not inordinate in the context of government functioning.

What did the court decide?

The additional written statement shall be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing.

Thestate of Karnataka Vs Shri. Narayan… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

Writ Petition No.100352 of 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶7

Between:

¶8

The State of Karnataka, Represented by :

¶9

The Secretary to the Government, Irrigation Department, M.S. Building, Bengaluru.

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi District, Belagavi.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Shahapur, Belagavi. … Petitioners

¶12

(By Shri Shivaprabhu Hiremath, Additional Government Advocate)

¶13

And:

¶14

Shri. Narayan Ganesh Kamat (Dead) Since dead. By his legal representatives

¶15

Smt.Rupa D/o Narayan Kamat, Age:53 Years ,Occupation:Household, Resident of "Jaydeep Apartment", 3^rd , T-3, Khanapur Road,

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

Tilakwadi, Belagavi, Now C/o: Ganesh N Kamat, At Surat Now represented by her GPA holder Sri Ramesh Baliram Kamat, Age:64 Years Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Shiroli, Dumala, Taluk: Karveer, District: Kolhapur.

¶18

Smt.Ujawala @ Sheetal W/o Satish Saraf, Age:52 Years Occupation: Household, Resident of C/o: Satish Saraf, 2/A, Sneha Co-Op Housing Society, Plot No.11, Sector II, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai-410206, Now represented by her GPA holder, Sri Ramesh Baliram Kamat, Age:64 Years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Shiroli, Dumala, Taluk: Karveer, District: Kolhapur.

¶19

Smt.Vandana W/O Atul Sukhatankar, Age:51 Years Occupation: Household, Resident of C/o: Atul Skhatankar D-7, Sarswati Colony, Sheetala Devi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai-16, Now represented by her GPA holder, Sri Ramesh Baliram Kamat, Age:64 Years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Shiroli, Dumala, Taluk: Karveer, District: Kolhapur.

¶20

Sri Ganesh S/o Narayan Kamat, Age:43 Years, Occupation: Private Service, Resident of A-404, Royal Arcade, Near Reliance Township, Piplod, Surat-395007, Now represented by her GPA holder, Sri Ramesh Baliram Kamat, Age:64 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

Resident of Shiroli, Dumala, Taluk: Karveer, District: Kolhapur.

¶23

… Respondents

¶24

(By Shri Sangram S Kulkarni, Advocate)

¶25

This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated:06.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.155/1995 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, at Belagavi vide Annexure-F.

¶26

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the court made the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶29

The State is in appeal in the following background. It transpires that the suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiff initially claiming damages for Rs.51,000/-. But, however, chose to amend the plaint claiming a much larger sum. The amendment having been allowed, the State, as was its usual practice, sought to file a belated additional written statement which was rejected by the Court below. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶30

If the plaintiff was permitted to amend his plaint, the defendant had every right to file an additional written statement

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

though it was belated, which ought to have been allowed on terms. If there was some inconvenience caused to the plaintiff on account of the delay and the suit being of such vintage having been filed in the year 1995, ought to have proceeded with expeditious. In this regard the Court was justified in holding that the delay on the part of the State was a just reason to reject the application. However, it is noticed that the delay is not inordinate in filing the additional written statement. Having regard to the fact that the defendant was the State Government and the manner in which its officers are given to working, the delay is expected and therefore it can be condoned by imposing appropriate costs.

¶33

Accordingly the State shall be permitted to amend the additional written statement on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing. The Court shall then proceed in accordance with law in taking the additional written statement on record.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

sh & kmv

Thestate of Karnataka v. Shri. Narayan Ganesh Kamat (Dead)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thestate of Karnataka v. Shri. Narayan Ganesh Kamat (Dead)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikala W/O. Ganapati Bhat Vs Annayya Subray Bhat

Shivappa Parsa Gulagavi Vs Maruti Sabu Gulagavi

Siddappa Vs Siddappa

Neelappagouda Bheemangouda Patil Vs Bheemangouda Neelappagouda Patil

B K Sunil Vs Prajapita Brahma Kumari Ishwariya

Meenaxi Naik W/O. Suresh Naik Vs State Bank of India