Allowed¶36

Shri. Dadamiya Husainsab Sanadi v. Yamuna B Wadeyar

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2025WP/102445/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dadamiya Husainsab Sanadi v. Yamuna B. Wadeyar and others; WP No.102445 of 2016 (GM-AC), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, decided 15.04.2025 by Justice Jyoti Mulimani. Keywords: certiorari against Tribunal order; rejection of I.A.No.7; delay in filing written statement; Order VIII Rule 1 CPC directory not mandatory; MVC No.393/2013; accident dated 15.12.2012; vehicle GA-01/R-7668; Athani; Belagavi; written statement permitted within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari ordered; the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Athani on I.A.No.7 in MVC No.393/2013 (Annexure-E) is quashed, and the third defendant is permitted to file his written statement within two months of receiving the certified copy of the order. ¶36

Shri. Dadamiya Husainsab Sanadi Vs Yamuna B Wadeyar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6379 WP No. 102445 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 102445 OF 2016 (GM-AC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI DADAMIYA HUSAINSAB SANADI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: H.NO.211, DAMANE ROAD, VADAGAON, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARAD V.MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

YAMUNA B. WADEYAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: R/O: ZERE GALLI ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SALEEM A. NAIKWADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: R/O: HUNCHANATTI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ANAND D. BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6379 WP No. 102445 of 2016

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Sri.Sharad V.Magadum., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Anand D.Bagewadi., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

¶25

Notice was issued to the respondents on 08.06.2016. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 2 and 3 are served and unrepresented. Respondents 2 and 3 have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶26

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated:21.10.2015 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Athani on I.A.No.7 in MVC No.393/2013 vide Annexure-E.

¶27

For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

¶28

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6379 WP No. 102445 of 2016

¶31

The claimant - Smt.Yamuna Basavaraj Wadeyar contends that she has suffered injuries on account of a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.12.2012. She has filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The offending vehicle is a car bearing No.GA-01/R-7668. The third respondent contends that he has purchased the vehicle from the first respondent on 07.07.2012. Hence, he made an application in I.A.No.7 requesting the Court to permit him to submit the written statement. However, the application came to be dismissed solely on the ground that there was a delay in filing the written statement. This is unsustainable in law. The reason is apparent. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 90 days time limit for filing the written statement under order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is directory, not mandatory. This means it’s a guideline rather than a strict deadline, allowing Courts discretion to grant extensions. In the present case, the third defendant has convincingly shown that failure to file a written statement was beyond his control. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application is liable to be quashed. This Court deems it proper

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6379 WP No. 102445 of 2016

¶34

to permit the third defendant to file a written statement within

¶35

two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶36