The High Court quashed the trial court order rejecting a memo wherein Defendant No.2 sought to adopt existing written statements, allowing him to do so but awarding costs to compensate for eight-year delay.
Order dated 13th December 2021 set aside; Defendant No.2 allowed to adopt written statement; Cost of Rs.5,000 directed to plaintiffs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.3933 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.13, 5TH MAIN, M.T. STREET, VASANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-52.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. MUTTANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R4)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON MEMO DATED 13TH DECEMBER, 2021 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1701 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU CITY (CCH-69) PRODUCED ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This Writ petition is filed by defendants 1 to 4 in Original Suit No.1701 of 2013 on the file of the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), rejecting the Memo filed by the defendant No.2 seeking adoption of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1.
4
and 4. The said Memo was opposed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, by order dated 13th December, 2021 rejected the Memo. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have preferred this writ petition.
5
6
7
delay in adopting the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 4 in the suit. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
It is also made clear that the trial Court shall expedite the hearing.
Sd/JUDGE
ARK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition ought to be filed for Relief against an order rejecting a memo dated 13th December 2021 passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No.1701 of 2013.
Whether the writ petitioners challenged the rejection of a Memo filed by the defendant in the under litigation who sought to adopt the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 4.
Whether the trial Court ought to have liberally construed the Memo filed by the defendant No.2 and accepted the same despite delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Salem Advocates Bar Association vs. Union of IndiaApplied¶8
SALEM ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA (2005) 6 SCC 344 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh S/o Late Yethiraj
A.S. Sampath Rani W/o Late Yethiraj
S. Manjula Devi D/o G. Sundar
S. Vanishree D/o G. Sundar
M. Jayanth S/o G. Muniswamy
M. Dinesh S/o G. Muniswamy
E.S. Indiresc
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
E.S. Indiresc
Parties & counsel
