Writ petition challenging the trial court's order taking written statement as not filed due to delay. Court held delay was justified pending plaint amendment, allowing defendants to file within 30 days.
Allowed the writ petition. Set aside the impugned order. Permitted defendants to file written statement within 30 days.
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 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10856 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PETITIONER NO.1 & 2 ARE CARRYING OUT BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE M/S OPTIMA POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.938-A, 'C' CROSS, 16TH MAIN, BEGUR ROAD, MICO LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560068.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANJAY B K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S JAJU'S FLOORING CONCEPTS, HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.857, SRINIVASAPURA CIRCLE, NEW 80 FEET ROAD, SOMAPURA ROAD, 11TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE, GANAKAL, BENGALURU - 560060,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI SNEHUMAR JAJU
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MATHEW P. M., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANTS TO FILE THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IN COM OS NO. 1033/2023 DTD 01.03.24 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-85, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B) TAKING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AS NOT FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendants in Com.O.S.No.1033/2023 on the file of LXXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-85), Commercial Court, Bengaluru have filed this petition challenging an order dated 01.03.2024, by which their written statement was taken as not filed.
they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
recovery of a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty five lakhs only) along with interest @ 24% p.a. The summons in the suit was served on 03.11.2023. After the summons was served, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the plaint was permitted to be amended. The plaintiffs amended the plaint on 10.01.2024. The defendants sought time to file their written statement. The Trial Court in terms of the order dated 07.03.2024, held that the suit summons was served on 03.11.2023 and that the defendants failed to file their written statement and hence, the written statement was taken as not filed. The Trial Court thereafter, posted the case for arguments. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants are before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:43094 WP No. 10856 of 2024
that after summons was served, the plaintiffs had filed an application to amend the plaint. There was enough justification for the defendants to await the outcome of the application for amendment. He submits that the plaint was amended on 10.01.2024 and therefore, the period of filing written statement ought to have commenced from 10.01.2024 and could not have been calculated from 03.11.2023. Therefore, he prays that the time to file the written statement be extended.
record and therefore, they were bound to file their written
statement within 120 days from 03.11.2023.
03.11.2023 when the suit summons was served. In that
view of the matter, the defendants are entitled to file their written statement. The Trial Court committed an error in construing the time limit of 120 days from 03.11.2023. Consequently, the impugned order warrants interference.
ORDER
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
SSD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the period for filing a written statement should be calculated from the service of summons or from the date of plaint amendment when an amendment was filed after summons.
Whether defendants were justified in awaiting the outcome of a plaint amendment application before filing their written statement.
Whether the Trial Court erred in taking the written statement as not filed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Arvind Patil
Sri Rajesh
M/s Jaju's Flooring Concepts
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
