Allowed

Mr.Hemanth M K v. M.S.Raghu

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2021WP/19579/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Article 226 to quash an order rejecting an application for leave to file a written statement beyond the timeline. The court held that Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and permitted the petitioner to file the written statement subject to conditions for trouble-free trial.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.09.2021 in O.S.No.4174/2019 was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Mr.Hemanth M K Vs M.S.Raghu — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.19579/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MR.HEMANTH M K S/O MANJUNATH KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS R/AT 703, 7^TH FLOOR A BLOCK, NCC ASTER PARK YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALOE-576 064 ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

M.S.RAGHU S/O MR SUBBA RAJU M AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.61, A G'S LAYOUT NEW BEL ROAD BENGALURU-560054 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 30.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4174/2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-9)

¶12

¶13

(ORDERS ON I.A. U/O 18 RULE 17 OF THE CPC AND ALSO U/S 151 OF CPC) VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ACCEPT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner, who is the third defendant in O.S.No.4174/2019 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-9) (for short, ' the civil Court '), has impugned the civil Court's order dated 30.09.2021. The civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioner's applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for leave to file written statement beyond the time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ' CPC' ). The civil Court has rejected the petitioner's applications observing that the petitioner, who pleads difficulties because of COVID-19, has not placed the necessary details to justify such defence, and

¶17

¶18

the civil Court has also observed that the records demonstrate that the petitioner has participated in certain other proceedings.

¶19

Sri. Kethan Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that according to his

¶20

instructions the petitioner has not generally appeared in person in the other proceedings and was represented by his learned counsel, and he canvasses that the petitioner is bonafide in saying that he and his family members were constrained because of COVID-19 affliction and the following restrictions. On the other Sri. S.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff submits that the suit is for ejectment and for other consequential relief. The petitioner, who is in possession of the subject premise [commercial premises] as a tenant, is deliberately protracting the proceedings. The petitioner has to pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,75,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five

¶21

¶22

Thousand Only) per month. The petitioner is in arrears of rent for a period in excess of twelve [12] months. Therefore, this Court must not be indulgent. Sri. Kethan Kumar, refutes these submissions and reiterates the petitioner’s bonafides in seeking leave to file written statement.

¶23

The petitioner's case for leave to file written statement is examined in the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by the learned counsels and in the light of the settled law that the timeline prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is directory and not mandatory. Further, the petitioner contends that apart from the lease arrangement as asserted by the respondent there is a supervening agreement with the respondent and the impact of this agreement has to be considered. This Court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the petitioner must be permitted to file written statement subject to payment of cost and

¶24

¶25

also call upon the civil Court to expeditiously dispose of the suit. Therefore, the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

a. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 in O.S.No.4174/2019 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru is quashed. The applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC filed by the petitioner are allowed and the civil Court is called upon to take on record the written statement filed by the petitioner.

¶28

b. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the respondent as cost on the date of first appearance before the civil Court after this order, and any failure in this regard shall be

¶29

¶30

construed as a waiver of the permission now granted.

¶31

c. The civil Court shall dispose of the suit in a time bound manner and in any event within a period of eight [8] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶32

d. The parties shall be at liberty to inform the civil Court of this order awaiting the certified copy.

¶33

SD/- JUDGE

¶34

Mr.Hemanth M K v. M.S.Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Hemanth M K v. M.S.Raghu

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

Smt. Padmavathamma Vs Sri. N. Narendra Murthy

R Sampath Kumar Vs Doddapapanna

Mr. Raoul Chittiappa Vs Keith Rebello

Smt. R Susheela Vs Sri. Basavaraju

Sri.S.Kandaswammy Vs Smt.Shazia Tabassum

Smt. Asmathunnisa Vs Sri. Jameel Ahmed Khan