Chand S/O Imamhussain Kwaramaddi Alias Gouli Vs Sivanaik S/O Dharmanaik Patil

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14141 WP No. 103098 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 103098 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHAND S/O IMAMHUSSAIN KWARAMADDI @ GOULI,AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALMADDI, DHARWAD.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. N.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SIVANAIK S/O DHARMANAIK PATIL, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD, TQ. DHARWAD.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

BABU S/O IMAMHUSSAIN KWARAMADDI @ GOULI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.,

¶15

RADHABAI W/O BABU KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 6^TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD.

¶16

LAXMI W/O CHATTU HENCHAWALE, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 6^TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD,

¶17

JANGALI S/O BABU KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14141 WP No. 103098 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BHAVITA W/O JANGALI KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALAMADDI,DHARWAD.

¶21

AKSHYA S/O JANGALI KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD.

¶22

SHIVANI D/O JANGALI KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD.

¶23

PRATIGYA D/O JANGALI KWARAMADDI @ GOULI, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GOULI GALLI, MALAMADDI,DHARWAD.

¶24

HEERA W/O RANNU GARAWALE, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 6^TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD.

¶25

RESHMA W/O KASHIM GOULI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 6^TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD.

¶26

BIBI W/O HERO DOULIWALE, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 6^TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI,DHARWAD.

¶27

HASAN S/O BABU KWARAMADDI, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 6^TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD.

¶28

IMAM S/O BABU KWARAMADDI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 6^TH CROSS, GOULI GALLI, NEAR MUSTAK MANZIL, DHARWAD.

¶29

… RESPONDENTS

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14141 WP No. 103098 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R12 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/03/2025 ON I.A. NO.15 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN O.S. NO.18/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.XV FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO.18/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶34

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶37

The petition is filed assailing the order rejecting the application seeking permission to file the written statement.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit was initially filed before the Civil Judge, Jr.Dvn. Dharwad, later, the present petitioner who was the defendant in the said suit appeared and contested the matter filed written statement and took a stand that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Accepting the contention, the plaint was returned and the plaintiff

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14141 WP No. 103098 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

presented the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad.

¶43

In the said suit, an additional written statement was sought to be filed by the defendant by filing an application in the year 2024 though the suit was transferred in the year 2021.

¶44

The plaintiff opposed the said application on two grounds:

¶45

(a) Delay;

¶46

(b) The stand taken in the earlier written statement and the stand taken in the second written statement are different and in the second written statement the defendant sought to take additional defenses.

¶47

It is also urged on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants who filed the written statement have also sold the property on 03.06.2019.

¶48

The Trial Court accepted the objection and rejected the application.

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14141 WP No. 103098 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that merely because some new grounds are raised in the second written statement sought to be filed, is not a ground to reject the application. It is his further submission that even if the property is sold, right to defend continues and would urge that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application.

¶52

Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application and plaintiff has no objection to permit the defendant to continue with the earlier written statement.

¶53

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.

¶54

Though the written statement was filed earlier before the Civil Judge, the right of the parties to amend the written statement once it is transferred to a Court having proper pecuniary jurisdiction is not taken away.

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14141 WP No. 103098 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Assuming that the stand taken in the earlier

¶59

written statement is contrary to the stand taken in the subsequent written statement, the plaintiff is at liberty to take advantage of the admissions if any, in the written statement filed earlier as the defendant/petitioner is not disowning the said written statement.

¶60

It is for the defendant/petitioner to explain under what circumstances he has changed the stand in the subsequent written statement. Apart from that merely because the property is sold, right to defend the suit is not taken away. The defendant has the obligation towards the purchaser to protect his interest as there would be indemnity clauses inbuilt in the transaction between the defendant and the purchaser.

¶61

Considering these aspects, this Court is of the view that the application seeking permission to file the written statement ought to have been allowed.

¶62