Allowed

Smt. D. Pallavi v. Smt. Chinnamma

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2021WP/14716/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a second defendant in a partition suit, filed a writ petition under Article 227 to quash an order rejecting her application for condonation of delay in filing a Written Statement. The court held the lower judge erred in limiting the 120-day restriction to commercial disputes and allowed the writ petition, condoning the delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed, impugned order quashed, delay condoned, Written Statement to be accepted on condition of Rs. 5,000 payment to Advocates Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Smt. D. Pallavi Vs Smt. Chinnamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.14716 OF 2019(GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. D. PALLAVI, W/O SRI V BABU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7/1, 1^ST CROSS, SWASTHIROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LOKESH L N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. CHINNAMMA, W/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA, D/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.68, 5^TH CROSS, BAZAAR STREET, NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE-560047.

¶13

SRI. M DEVARAJ, S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3447, 68^TH CROSS, KUMARASWMY LAYOUT, J P NAGAR POST, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560078.

¶14

SMT.KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVARAJA BUILDING, BHAJANEMANE , JARAGANAHALLI, J P NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560078.

¶15

¶16

SMT. RUKKAMMA, W/O LATE MUSISANJEEVAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT JARAGANAHALLI, J P NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED V.C.O DATED 03/04/2019 NOTICE TO R2-R4 IS D/WITH)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2019, PASSED ON IA.NO.2 U/S 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-44) IN O.S.NO.982/2017 (ANNEXURE-E) AND TO DIRECT TO THE COURT BELOW TO TAKE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT (ANNEXURE-C) FILED ON RECORD.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner being the second defendant in a partition

¶23

suit in O.S.No.982/2017 is assailing the order dated 23.01.2019 a copy whereof is at Annexure-E whereby his application in IA No.2 filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement having been rejected, her Written Statement is eschewed from the record.

¶24

Despite service of notice, contesting

¶25

respondents have chosen to remain unrepresented; however that will not relieve the Court from deciding the case at hands on its intrinsic merits.

¶26

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶28

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, learned judge of the Court below proceeded on a wrong premise of law that beyond 120 days no Written Statement can be filed; learned counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in saying that this restriction enacted by the Parliament is confined to the commercial disputes covered under the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and not to other suits; thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court.

¶29

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed; interim order is set at naught; petitioner’s subject application having been favoured, delay is condoned and learned judge of the Court below is requested to accept the Written Statement on record subject to she paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Advocates Welfare Fund, Bangalore within a period of four weeks failing which the order now quashed shall revive on its own, as phoenix.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Bsv

Smt. D. Pallavi v. Smt. Chinnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. D. Pallavi v. Smt. Chinnamma

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

Sushma H T Vs Rangaswamy

Sri Nandeeshaiah Vs Smt M P Sarvamangala

The Cheif Officer Vs Ganesh Kamath

Smt Gangamma Vs Sri M v Hanumanthaiah

Sri. T. Xavier Vs Sharmila

Sri Zakir Hussain Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahangara Palike