Allowed

Sri K C Prabhakar Reddy v. Sri T Srinivas Reddy

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2021WP/18525/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside a Civil Court's order rejecting applications for condonation of delay and permission to file a written statement. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Civil Court to take the written statement on record, while directing the petitioner to pay costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed, petitioner permitted to file written statement, directed to pay Rs. 10,000 costs.

Sri K C Prabhakar Reddy Vs Sri T Srinivas Reddy — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.18525/2021(GM/CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI K C PRABHAKAR REDDY S/O CHOKAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A 727, 3-C, 8^TH MAIN 1ST BLOCK, H R B R LAYOUT KALIAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN H.P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

1 . SRI. T. SRINIVAS REDDY S/O LATE R THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶12

2 . SRI T. NANDA GOPAL S/O LATE R THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶13

3 . SRI T. RAJESH S/O LATE R THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT 34 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN R K KUVEMPU ROAD B-CHANNASANDRA

¶15

¶16

KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU EAST-560 036

¶17

4 . SMT. CHITRA ANNASWAMY W/O T V ANNASWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR 4(A) SRI A M RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE CHITRA ANNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A NO.1, ARCOT HOUSE KINGSTON STREET, RICHMOND TOWN BENGALURU - 560 025 5 . SMT. R MALA D/O LATE RAJAGOPALAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A NO.63, 1^ST FLOOR TYAGARAJANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 023 6 . SRI V NAGARAJ S/O LATE T A VENKATA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO.3425, 2^ND FLOOR 2^ND STAGE, 10^TH MAIN KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 025 7 . SRI T N VENUGOPAL REDDY S/O SRI T. V. NARASI REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A CHIKKA TAKAHALLI VILLAGE SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 105 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. BAYYA REDDY, ADVOCATE AND SRI. N. NAGENDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2021 IN O.S.NO.329/2017 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH 19) REJECTING THE I.A.NO.8 AND 9 FILED U/S 151 OF THE CPC 1908 AND I.A.NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1-A R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAME AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner, who is the fourth defendant in O.S.No.329/2017 on the file of the City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-19 Bengaluru (for short , the 'civil Court'), has filed this petition impugning the civil Court's order dated 3.9.2021. The civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioner's applications [IA Nos.8, 9 and 10]. The petitioner has filed these applications for condonation of delay in filing the written statement (IA.10), for permission to file the written statement (IA.9) and to recall the order dated 24.6.2017 (IA.8).

¶23

¶24

The petitioner does not dispute that he was served with the suit summons and he had to file the written statement within the month of April 2017, but he contends that he handed over all the papers to his previous counsel on record in the year 2019. However, the learned counsel could not assist him in filing the written statement, and she later expressed her inability to continue as she was in the family way twice and because of the Covid-19 restrictions. The petitioner asserts that he was therefore constrained to engage another counsel and file the written statement along with the applications as aforesaid.

¶25

The reasons assigned by the petitioner should be considered in the light of the fact that the suit in O.S. No. 329/2017 is for declaration of title to an immovable property impugning certain registered transactions, and this Court must opine that the civil Court has not thus considered all the circumstances. This Court must also

¶26

¶27

observe that the reasons offered by the petitioner should be considered in the light of the settled law that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are held to be directory and not mandatory. But, the petitioner, who is hereby permitted to file written statement, must be called upon to pay costs to offset any difficulty to the plaintiffs. Hence the following

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.9.2021 in O.S.NO.329/2017 passed by the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) is quashed allowing the petitioner's application condoning the delay in filing the written statement and directing the civil Court to take the written statement on record. The petitioner on the first date of hearing after this order shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondents.

¶30

Sd/- JUDGE

¶31

Sri K C Prabhakar Reddy v. Sri T Srinivas Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K C Prabhakar Reddy v. Sri T Srinivas Reddy

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

Sri C N Srinivasa Kumar Vs Smt. Preethi Balaji

Jayarama Reddy Vs Shivaram

Smt Eramma Vs Smt Putti Bai

G Janaki Vs Mr. a G Seshappa

Smt Pushpalatha Vs Mrs Reshma

Alimamma Vs Mr Abdul Gafoor