Defendant in a suit challenging a settlement deed sought permission to file a belated written statement; the Trial Court refused. The High Court set aside that order, allowing the written statement subject to costs of Rs.10,000, since the suit was still at the plaintiff's evidence stage.
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 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11644 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTHI WIFE OF LATE E. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27/2, CAR STREET, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560008.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VASUNDARA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. E. THYAGARAJ SON OF LATE K. ELUMALAI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.67, 2ND 'H' CROSS, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560084. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.25832/2016 ON THE FILE OF LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE (CCH-58) AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendant in O.S.No.25832/2016 on the file of LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo-hall, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) has filed this petition challenging an order dated 06.03.2024, by which an application filed by him under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to file written statement was rejected.
28.04.2016. The other son of Mr. K.Elumalai named Mr. E. Krishna Murthy died on 07.05.2016. The defendant is the wife of late Mr. E.Krishna Murthy. The plaintiff claimed that during the life time of Mr. K.Elumalai, he had gifted a property bearing No.27/2 to Mr. E.Krishna Murthy. He alleged that the defendant along with her husband - Mr.E.Krishnamurthy, her children and Mr. K.Elumalai filed O.S.No.3024/2011 for partition and separate possession. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, following which, Miscellaneous Petition No.633/2013 was filed to restore the suit. The said petition was also dismissed. He claimed that on 25.07.2016, he found some strangers near the suit property and on enquiry, he came to know about fraudulent settlement deed executed in favour of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for the aforesaid reliefs.
(ii) The summons in the suit was served on the defendant and an advocate was engaged. However, the written statement was not filed within the time stipulated. The defendant then filed an application on 03.02.2024 seeking permission to file written statement. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the defendant claimed that after
NC: 2024:KHC:50854 WP No. 11644 of 2024
the death of her husband, she went into depression and therefore could not meet her advocate to give instructions to file written statement. Later, due to Covid-19 pandemic, she was unable to venture outside the house. She claimed that she later engaged another advocate who informed her that the written statement was not filed and therefore, requested that permission be granted to file written statement.
(iii) The application was contested by the plaintiff, who contended that the defendant entered appearance on 04.01.2017, but did not file the written statement. The Trial Court passed an order dated 23.03.2023 treating the written statement of the defendant as not filed and thereafter, listed the case for evidence. He claimed that he was examined as PW.1 on 28.07.2023 and the case was then posted for crossexamination. Since PW.1 was not cross-examined, he was discharged. Thereafter a vakalath was filed on behalf of the defendant on 20.01.2024 and an application seeking permission to file written statement was filed on 03.02.2024, which was highly belated.
(iv) The Trial Court, after considering the application, rejected the same in terms of the impugned order.
counsel for the defendant as well as the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
NC: 2024:KHC:50854 WP No. 11644 of 2024
passed:
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
2 issues framed by the court
Whether permission should be granted to the defendant to file a belated written statement in O.S.No.25832/2016 despite years of delay.
Whether the Trial Court's rejection of that application under Section 151 CPC should be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Shanthi
Sri. E. Thyagaraj
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
