Plaintiffs in a suit sought leave to file a replication to defendant No.6's written statement containing new facts; the trial court had rejected the application. The High Court set aside that order and permitted a clarificatory replication without introducing a fresh cause of action.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:21923 WP No. 8530 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.8530 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
S/O LATE SRI E. SHANKARAAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.3, SHANKARAPPA REDDY GARDEB, TATA SHERWOOD ROAD BASAVANAGARA MARTHAHALLI POST BANGALORE-560 037.
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka
"LAKSHMI NILAYA", 5TH CROSS VEERABHADRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE-560 037.
NC: 2024:KHC:21923 WP No. 8530 of 2024
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF APARTMENT NO.310 III FLOOR, APOORVA LAKESIDE APARTMENTS TATA SHERWOOD ROAD BASAVANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 037.
MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. GEETHA VIVEKANANDA, SECOND DEFENDANT,
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.9 GROUND FLOOR APOORVA LAKESIDE APARTMENTS TATA SHERWOOD ROAD BASAVANAGARA BANGALORE-560 037.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.B. AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR R.6; NOTICE TO R.1 TO R.5 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.06.2024.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 REJECTING I.A.NO.1/2021 ANNEXURE-A IN O.S.NO.25410 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL AT BENGALURU (CCH-58), ALLOW I.A.NO.1/2021 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO PLACE ON RECORD THEIR REJOINDER, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:21923 WP No. 8530 of 2024
ORDER
though justifies the order passed by the trial Court, fairly submits that if the petitioners only intends to deny or
clarify the facts stated in the written statement, to that extent, their application may be allowed.
"9.Subsequent pleadings .- No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to setoff or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional
NC: 2024:KHC:21923 WP No. 8530 of 2024
written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same."
NC: 2024:KHC:21923 WP No. 8530 of 2024
on I.A.1/2021 by the Court of LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in
O.S.No.25410/2020 is hereby set aside.
Sd/JUDGE
VMB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
1 issue framed by the court
Should the plaintiffs be permitted to file a rejoinder to defendant No.6's written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC after the trial court rejected the application?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Rajagopala Reddy
S. Nagaraja Reddy
S. Chandrashekara Reddy
S. Vijayaraghava Reddy
Paramahamsa Reddy
Manoj P.
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
