Defendants filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order allowing legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff to pursue a suit for declaratory relief and perpetual injunction, despite alleging false ground in their affidavit for condonation of delay.
This writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
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 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 3713 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:41909 WP No. 3713 of 2024
ALL THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT AGALAKOTE VILLAGE, CHENNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDERS DTD 01.12.2023 ALLOWING APPLICATION IN ANNEXURES-G, H AND J I.E., IA NO. 2 UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 3 CPC, IA NO. 3 UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 9 CPC AND IA NO. 4 UNDER SEC 5 LIMITATION ACT IN OS NO. 61/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendants in O.S.No.61/2019 pending trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 01.12.2023 by which, applications (I.A.Nos.II to IV) filed by the legal representatives of the deceased - plaintiff to come on record, for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement of the suit, were allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:41909 WP No. 3713 of 2024
their written statement.
that the reason mentioned in applications filed for condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement was clearly false. He invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in the affidavits accompanying the said applications, wherein the legal representatives claimed that they were not aware of the proceedings in O.S.No.61/2019 and that immediately after they came to know of the same, they met their advocate and instructed him to file applications to bring them on record. The learned counsel contends that this is clearly a false statement since the very same applicants had filed written statement in
O.S.No.75/2019 where they had specifically mentioned about the pendency of the present suit in O.S.No.61/2019. He stated that the written statement in O.S.No.75/2019 was filed on 09.02.2019. Therefore, he contends that the assertions made in the affidavits were utterly false and the Trial Court must have considered this before allowing the applications for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement. He further contends that the Trial Court did not even cursorily refer to the objections of the defendants to the applications filed for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement. He therefore, prays that the impugned order be either set aside or the Trial Court be directed to re-consider the applications afresh.
learned counsel for the defendants.
for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement were false but yet, having regard to the reliefs sought for in the suit, they cannot be deprived or denied an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. In that view of the matter, without going into the question whether the assertions made by the applicants in the affidavits accompanying the applications were true or false, since issue involved a substantial right, the applicants deserved to come on record and pursue the suit on merits.
dismissed .
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
3 issues framed by the court
Whether legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff can pursue a suit for declaratory relief regarding easementary rights despite alleged false statements in affidavits for condonation of delay.
What is the correct approach for a High Court when examining writ petitions challenging orders allowing legal representatives to come on record even if there are factual inconsistencies in their expla
Whether the High Court should remit the matter to the Trial Court for re-consideration of comfort of delay applications when the suit involves substantial rights.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI. JAGANNATH V. PAI
SMT. SHANTHA. J. PAI
SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA
SRI. NARASIMHAPPA
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
SRI. DEVARAJU
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
