Dismissed¶46

Sri Narayanappa K v. Sri Narayanaswamy a

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2025WP/23774/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru, 17-09-2025; WP No. 23774 of 2025 (GM-CPC); NC: 2025:KHC:37101. Keywords: condonation of delay; belated/delayed written statement; Section 151 CPC; Section 89 CPC enquiry; Article 227 certiorari; O.S. No. 1625/2023; Principal Senior Civil Judge Bengaluru Rural District; cost of Rs. 5,000/-; ill-health of defendant; plaintiff's objection of non-diligence/order-sheet events; no perversity; sound reasoning; no warrant of interference; petition rejected/dismissed. Petitioners (plaintiffs): Narayanappa K, Chethan N., Madhan N. (counsel Sameer S.N); Respondent (defendant): Narayanaswamy A (counsel Manjunatha Prasanna H A).

What did the court decide?

A perusal of the trial court's order discloses no perversity. ¶43

Sri Narayanappa K Vs Sri Narayanaswamy a — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37101 WP No. 23774 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23774 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NARAYANAPPA K

¶9

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE KURLAPPA,

¶10

SRI CHETHAN N. AGED 27 YEARS, S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA K.

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI MADHAN N. AGED 23 YEARS, S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA K.

¶13

ALL THE PETITITONERS ARE RESIDING AT NO.31/1, KANNUR VILLAGE, AND POST, HENNUR-BAGALUR ROAD, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 077. …PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SAMEER S.N, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37101 WP No. 23774 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI NARAYANASWAMY A

AGED 67 YEARS, S/O SRI ANJANAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.62, KANNUR VILLAGE AND POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 077.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA PRASANNA H A.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A, DATED 03.5.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU ALLOWING I A NO.3, PERMITTING DEFENDANT TO FILE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O. S. NO. 1625/2023 AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:37101 WP No. 23774 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are before this court calling in question an order dated 03.05.2025 passed on IA.No.3 permitting the written statement to be filed by the respondent, answering an application seeking condonation of delay.

¶30

The petitioners are plaintiffs, institute a suit in OS.No.1625/2023 seeking declaration and injunction. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The concerned court long after the institution of the suit and the time being over permits filing of the written statement on account of answering an application and seeking condonation of delay for the purpose of filing of the written statement. The concerned court by the following order permits filing of the said written statement:

¶31

"Heard both side on IA No.III filed by the defendant under Section 151 of CPC.

¶32

The defendant has filed above IA to receive the Written Statement stating that, due to the ill-health of defendant, he could not instruct his counsel to file Written Statement.

¶33

The plaintiff objected above IA stating that, squeal of events transpired after filing of the suit, as denoted in the order sheet, indicates that the defendant is not

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:37101 WP No. 23774 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

diligent in conducting himself in the suit. Hence, sought for rejection of the application.

¶38

Though, the defendant failed to file Written Statement within the period prescribed. However, if the Written Statement of defendant is not received cause the it would injustice to defendant as his right of defense would be shut. Therefore, it is proper to allow the above IA by imposing certain cost. Accordingly, the Court pass following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

IA No.III filed by the defendant under Section 151 of CPC is allowed on cost of Rs.5,000/-.

¶41

Consequently, Written Statement of defendant is taken on record subject to payment of cost.

¶42

For payment of cost and enquiry under Section 89 of CPC by 12-07-2025."

¶43

A perusal in the order nowhere broods any perversity.

¶44

The concerned court has only permitted filing of the written