Allowed¶51

Sri P S Suresh v. Sri Subbappa

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2025WP/13981/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Written statement; delay in filing; permission to file written statement beyond time; Section 151 CPC; time frame directory not mandatory; monetary compensation for delay; costs Rs.10,000/-; Article 227; GM-CPC writ; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; S Vishwajith Shetty J; O.S.No.874/2022 Hosakote; declaration of sale deed dated 05.04.1995 null and void; Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint pending; Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC withdrawal of suit; interim stay of suit proceedings; NC: 2025:KHC:53624.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 19.07.2021 on IA.No.5 in O.S.No.874/2022 set aside; prayer in IA.No.5 granted subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing; Trial Court directed to receive the written statement filed along with IA.No.5.

Sri P S Suresh Vs Sri Subbappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 19.07.2021 rejecting IA.No.5 (filed by defendant no.1 under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file his written statement in O.S.No.874/2022) should be set aside and the written statement taken on record. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Granting opportunity to defendant no.1 to file his written statement would serve the ends of justice; accordingly the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and IA.No.5 granted subject to costs.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The time frame provided under the statute (after amendment of CPC) for filing of written statement is not mandatory but only directory; a defendant who fails to file within it must seek the court's permission to file his written statement.

¶41

Key takeaways

If the defendant is not granted an opportunity to defend the prayer in the suit (declaration that the sale deed is null and void), his case is likely to be prejudiced and he is likely to be put to hardship and injury.ratio¶45
Inconvenience caused to the other side by the inordinate delay in filing the written statement can be compensated monetarily.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (W.P. No. 13981 of 2021 (GM-CPC), under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; S Vishwajith Shetty, J.; 16.12.2025): Writ petition allowed. The Trial Court's order dated 19.07.2021 rejecting IA.No.5 filed under Section 151 CPC by defendant no.1 seeking permission to file his written statement in O.S.No.874/2022 (suit praying declaration that the sale deed dated 05.04.1995 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff) was set aside. The Court held that the post-amendment statutory time frame for filing a written statement is directory, not mandatory; that denial of an opportunity to defend would prejudice the defendant; and that inconvenience from the inordinate delay can be compensated monetarily. IA.No.5 was granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff, and the Trial Court was directed to receive the written statement filed along with IA.No.5. The Court noted the pending plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (amendment of plaint, on which no orders were passed), the plaintiff's subsequent application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh, and the interim order of this Court staying further proceedings in the suit.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53624 WP No. 13981 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 13981 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI P.S. SURESH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE S.N. PALLEGAR RESIDING AT NO.53, SHANKARAPURAM RANGA RAO ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI B. PRAMOD, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI SUBBAPPA

¶15

S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED AOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.636, 7TH CROSS CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR ELECTRONIC CITY POST

¶16

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶18

SRI H.K. NAGARAJ S/O SRI H. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.29, 3RD CROSS 1ST MAIN, DOLLARS COLONY R.M.V. 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SHIVASHANKAR K, ADV.)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2021, PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 U/S 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, IN

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:53624 WP No. 13981 of 2021

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

O.S.NO.212/2014 ANNEXURE-H AND TO DIRECT TO THE COURT BELOW TO TAKE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT (ANNEXURE-E) FILED ON RECORD.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Respondent no.1 herein has filed O.S.No.874/2022 before

¶29

the jurisdictional Civil Court at Hosakote, with a prayer to declare that the sale deed dated 05.04.1995 executed between defendant nos.1 & 2 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

¶30

Petitioner herein had filed IA.no.5 under Section 151 CPC before the Trial Court seeking permission of the court to file his written statement and oppose the suit claim. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected IA.No.5 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged, submits that along with the application, petitioner also has filed his written statement in O.S.No.874/2022. He submits that since the plaintiff had filed

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53624 WP No. 13981 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint, defendant no.1 had delayed filing of written statement and he intended to file a detailed written statement after the plaint was amended. However, no orders were passed

¶35

on the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the plaint, and therefore, IA.no.5 under Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 seeking permission of the Trial Court to permit defendant no.1 to file written statement. He submits that after passing of the order impugned, the plaintiff has now filed an application before the Trial Court seeking permission of the Trial Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. However, in view of the interim order passed by this Court staying further proceedings in O.S.No.874/2022, no orders have been passed on the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶36

Suit in O.S.No.874/2022 is filed with a prayer to declare that the sale deed executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It appears that defendant no.1 is the sole contesting defendant

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53624 WP No. 13981 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

in the suit and he is the purchaser of the suit schedule property under the sale deed dated 05.04.1995 which is questioned in the suit.

¶40

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint by incorporating the proposed paragraph 2A immediately after paragraph no.2. According to the petitioner's counsel, no orders have been passed on the said application and awaiting orders on the application filed by the plaintiff to permit him to amend the plaint, the defendant had delayed filing of the written statement.

¶41

It is true that after amendment of CPC, a time frame is provided for filing of written statement and in the event the written statement is not filed within the time frame as provided under the statute, then the defendant is required to seek permission from the court to file his written statement. It is trite that time frame provided under the statute is not mandatory and is only directory.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:53624 WP No. 13981 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The present suit is filed seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed which is executed in favour of the petitioner herein as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. If the defendant is not granted opportunity to defend the prayer made in the suit, his case is likely to be prejudiced and resultantly, he is likely to be put to hardship and injury.

¶46

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking permission of the court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The copy of the said application supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff, is filed before this Court, which is taken on record.

¶47

Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that if opportunity is granted to defendant no.1 to file his written statement in the suit, the same would serve the ends of justice. Inconvenience caused to the other side because of the inordinate delay in filing the written statement, can be compensated monetarily. Accordingly, the following order:

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:53624 WP No. 13981 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.07.2021 passed on IA.no.5 in O.S.No.874/2022 by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hosakote, is set aside. Consequently, the prayer made in IA.no.5 is granted, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff before the Trial Court on the next date of

¶52

hearing. The Trial Court is directed to receive the written statement filed along with IA.no.5.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶55

Sri P S Suresh v. Sri Subbappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P S Suresh v. Sri Subbappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Anupama Wine Distributors Vs M/S Tilak Nagar Industries Limited

Mr Sanjay T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Y. Ganesh Vs Smt. Kiran C. Narang

Sri.C.F. Jose Vs Dr. George

Sri S.D Nagendra Vs Sri T K Abraham

Sri.K.H.Vittala Vs Sri.D.R.Vijaya