Allowed

Smt. Mahadevi W/O Mahadev Tavadar v. Alagonda Balagonda Patil

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2023WP/100372/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the trial court order rejecting the application for filing an additional written statement. The court held that legal representatives can file pleadings that are not inconsistent with the original defendant's stance, thus granting justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.10.2022 was set aside, I.A. No. 5 was allowed, and the trial court was directed to receive the additional written statement.

Smt. Mahadevi W/O Mahadev Tavadar Vs Alagonda… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 100372 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 100372 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.MAHADEVI W/O MAHADEV TAVADAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KANABARGI, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

SHIDAGOUDA ISHWAR PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ALUR, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. RAMESH I.ZIRALI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶14

ALAGONDA BALAGONDA PATIL, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O HADALAGA, TAL: HUKKERI-591309, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW AT GADHINGLAJ, TAL: GADHINGLAJ, MAHARASHTRA-416501.

¶15

SMT.SHRIMATI W/O ISHWAR PATIL, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O ALUR, TAL: HUKKERI-591309, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

SMT.SUSHILA W/O SADASHIV AKKISAGAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O SHIGIHALLI, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591101.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 100372 of 2023

¶19

NINGANAGOUDA ISHWAR PATIL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O ALUR, TAL: HUKKERI-591309, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI Y.G.GUMAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2022 PASSED ON I.A. NO. V IN O.S. NO. 101/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SANKESHWAR AS PER ANNEXURE-F.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.101/2015 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Sankeshwar whereby the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 C.P.C. for permission to file additional written statement was rejected by the trial Court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶27

The material on record discloses that the 1^st respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the

¶28

¶29

WP No. 100372 of 2023

¶30

petitioners’ father for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. During the pendency of the said suit, pursuant to expiry of the petitioners’ father, petitioners came on record as defendants No.1(b) and 1(e). Subsequently, petitioners filed the instant application. In this context, it is relevant to state that before his demise, petitioners’ father, original defendant had already filed his written statement.

¶31

Subsequent to coming on record as legal representatives of the deceased defendant, petitioners filed the instant application seeking permission to file additional written statement. The said application having been opposed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.5, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of present petition.

¶32

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the written statement sought to be filed by the petitioners is exactly similar to the written statement already filed by their father and the petitioners cannot take a stance contrary to the defence already put forth by their father. The said finding

¶33

¶34

WP No. 100372 of 2023

¶35

recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the additional written statement sought to be filed by the petitioners is contrary to the well settled principles of law governing filing additional written statement, which permit the legal representatives of the party to file additional pleadings which are not contrary or inconsistent with the pleadings of the original defendant. In other words, the petitioners are entitled to take up such pleas and defences which are not contrary or inconsistent with the written statement already filed by the original defendant. A perusal of the additional written statement sought to be filed along with I.A.No.5 will indicate that the same contains various averments which are not inconsistent or contrary to the written statement filed by the original defendant. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.5 has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference in the present petition. In the result, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The petition is allowed.

¶38

ii. The impugned order dated 27.10.2022 is hereby set aside and I.A.No.5 is allowed.

¶39

¶40

WP No. 100372 of 2023

¶41

iii. The trial Court to receive the additional written statement filed by the petitioner on record and proceed further in the matter.

¶42

iv. Further, the trial Court is directed to consider only the pleas put forth in the additional written statement filed by the petitioners which are not inconsistent or contrary to the averments made by the original defendant in his written statement.

¶43

SD JUDGE

¶44

CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Smt. Mahadevi W/O Mahadev Tavadar v. Alagonda Balagonda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mahadevi W/O Mahadev Tavadar v. Alagonda Balagonda Patil

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. Savitha W/O Late Badarinarayan Padaki Vs Smt. Manjula W/O Late Govindarao Padaki

Prateek S. Goudru Vs Union of India

Rukmini W/O Late Parushram Birje Vs the City Corporation Belagavi

Sujitkumar S/O. Malanagouda Patil Vs Kallappa S/O Shivaling Atyal

G Parshuram S/O Gondbal Manappa Vs the Director of Marketing

K Zahedullah S/O. Ameer Asadullah Vs the Authorised Officer