Smt S Mamatha Vs Smt Kavitha H a — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt S Mamatha Vs Smt Kavitha H a — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 11.07.2024 set aside; IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 allowed; written statements of defendant Nos.10 to 13 ordered to be taken on record, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- each by petitioner-defendants on or before the next date of hearing; trial Court directed to expedite disposal of O.S.No.25816/2016.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.07.2024 of the trial Court rejecting IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 (seeking reopening of the case and permission to the petitioners/defendant Nos.10 to 13 to file their written statement by condoning the delay) is liable to be set aside.

Court's answer

In view of respondent No.1-plaintiff having no objection to the petition being allowed and conceding to the same, nothing much further survives in the petition and the Court need not delve into the merits of the matter.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed on IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in O.S.No.25816/2016 by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, is set aside, and consequently IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 filed by defendant Nos.10 to 13 are allowed.

Key takeaways

The written statement filed by defendant Nos.10 to 13 shall be taken on record.ratio¶80
The taking of the written statement on record and further progress of the suit are subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- each by petitioner-defendant Nos.10 to 13 on or before the next date of hearing.ratio¶85
The trial Court shall expedite the matter and dispose of the suit (originally instituted in the year 2016) as expeditiously as possible.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Written statement — Condonation of delay — Petitioners, defendant Nos.10 to 13 in O.S.No.25816/2016, failed to file written statement though vakalath stood entrusted to counsel — Applications (IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024) under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case from the stage of defendants' evidence and take the written statement on record were dismissed by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, with cost of Rs.500/- — Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Allowed on the concession of respondent No.1-plaintiff, who had no objection to the petition being allowed; impugned order dated 11.07.2024 set aside; interlocutory applications allowed; written statements of defendant Nos.10 to 13 taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- each; trial Court directed to expedite disposal of the suit of the year 2016. Merits not gone into, disposal being founded on the concession of respondent No.1.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1062 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT.S.MAMATHA

D/O.V.SUDHAKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

SRI MAHESH

S/O.V.SUDHAKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

SRI MADHUSUDAN S/O.V.SUDHAKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O.V.SUDHAKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.24 BYRASANDRA, K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 093

(BY SRI SANJAN G.MURTHY FOR SRI SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATES)

AND:

SMT.KAVITHA H.A. D/O.LATE H.C.ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.232 'MARUTHI KRUPA', HAGADUR K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 066

…PETITIONERS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025

HC-KAR

REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER

SRI SUNIL KUMAR M. S/O.SRI MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, J.B.NAGAR BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD M.S.NAGAR BENGALURU-560 033

SMT.JAYAMMA W/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

SRI B.G.VASUDEV S/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

SRI B.G.RAMESH S/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

SRI B.G.VISHNU PRASAD S/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

SMT.B.G.GIRIJA D/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

SMT.B.G.MANJULA D/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

SRI B.G.NAGARAJ S/O.LATE B.V.GOPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

SRI B.G.VENKATESH S/O.LATE B.V.GOPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025

HC-KAR

SMT.B.G.PADMAVATHI D/O.LATE B.V.GOPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT NO.24 BYRASANDRA K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 093

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA FOR SRI H.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R-6, R-8 TO 10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2024 PASSED ON IA.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.25816/2016 BY LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH NO.58).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by defendant Nos.10 to 13 against the plaintiff and other defendants, who are the codefendants before the trial Court.

The petitioners are questioning the order dated 11.07.2024 passed on IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in O.S.No.25816/2016 by LVII Additional City Civil and

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025

HC-KAR

Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners seeking to reopen the case from the stage of defendants' evidence to the stage of filing the written statement and permit defendant Nos.7

to 13 to file their written statement by condoning the delay therein came to be dismissed with cost of Rs.500/-.

It is the case of the plaintiff that a suit was filed against the defendants for the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs. Thereafter, the petitioners filed IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the case from the stage of defendants' evidence to the stage of filing the written statement and permit defendant Nos.7 to 13 to file their written statement by condoning the delay therein.

It is the contention of Sri Sanjan G.Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Srihari A.V. for petitioners that after filing the suit for recovery of possession, the plaintiff has amended the plaint by

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025

HC-KAR

deleting the prayer for recovery of possession and has

sought for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

It is further contended that upon appearance, defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and also took up a plea that the suit is not maintainable. It is the further contended by learned counsel for petitioners that though defendant Nos.7 to 13 had entrusted the vakalath to the counsel, who was also representing defendant Nos.5 and 6. However, they have not filed written statement. The petitioners immediately approached their counsel and requested him to file written statement. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 to reopen the case and permitting them to file written statement by condoning the delay. The said applications came to be dismissed by

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025

HC-KAR

imposing cost of Rs.500/-, which is the subject matter of

this petition.

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the impugned order is wholly erroneous, contrary to law and facts and the learned trial Judge has rejected the applications mechanically without appreciating the reasons for condonation of delay and non filing of the written statement. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners were not aware of their non-filing of the written statement by their counsel and only when they came to know about the written statement is filed by defendant Nos.5 and 6, they immediately approached the trial Court and also tendered their written statement. Hence, it is contented by learned counsel that if the written statement

is not taken on record, there would be no defence of the petitioners and they would not be able to conduct their case effectively without any pleadings. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned order

and permit them to file the written statement and they are

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025

HC-KAR

willing to abide by the terms and conditions for expeditious

disposal of the suit.

Per contra , Sri Ramachandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri H.R.Anantha Krishna Murthy for respondent No.1-plaintiff vehemently opposed the submissions and arguments put-forth by learned counsel for petitioners and contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. It is also contended that the applications are filed by the defendants after lapse of nearly 8 years and no reasons are assigned for condonation of delay. After making these statements, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that he would not have much objection in the petition being allowed on imposition of costs, and the impugned order being set aside solely on the ground that he is interested in prosecuting the suit and the outcome of the suit rather than contesting this petition. Therefore, he concedes this petition being allowed by imposing cost on the petitioners-defendants.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025

HC-KAR

In view of the fact that respondent No.1-plaintiff

does not have any objection to this petition being allowed and concedes to the same nothing much further survives in this petition and this Court need not delve into the

merits of the matter. However, this Court will have to take into consideration the imposition of cost, so also, the delay having occasioned and the concession made therein by learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed;

ii) The impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed on IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in O.S.No.25816/2016 by LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 filed by the defendant Nos.10 to 13 are allowed;

iii) The written statement filed by defendant Nos.10 to 13 shall be taken on record;

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025

HC-KAR

iv) The trial Court shall proceed further subject to

payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- each by petitionersdefendant Nos.10 to 13 on or before the next date of hearing;

v) The trial Court shall expedite the matter and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, considering the fact that, the original suit is of the year 2016.

Ordered accordingly.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending Interlocutory Application, if any does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

LB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62