Dismissed¶39

Smt C Munichowdamma v. Sri C Munichowdappa

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2025WP/5045/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 5045 of 2025 (GM-CPC); Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad; writ under Articles 226/227 Constitution; challenge to rejection of I.A.No.20 under Section 151 CPC; O.S.No.256/2008, III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar; permission to file written statement sought after 14 years' delay; insufficient reasons for delay; partition suit with ex parte temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; defendant No.3; writ petition dismissed on 24.02.2025; no precedents cited; no costs or amounts awarded.

What did the court decide?

Defendant No.3 having failed to provide sufficient reasons in I.A.No.20 for not filing the written statement for 14 years, the trial Court rightly rejected the application. ¶37

Smt C Munichowdamma Vs Sri C Munichowdappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:8071 WP No. 5045 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5045 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT C MUNICHOWDAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA D/O CHIKKA MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT KADAGATTUR VILLAGE VEMAGAL HOBLI KOALR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. UMESH B N.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI C MUNICHOWDAPPA S/O CHIKKA MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS R/AT #518 2A MAIN, 6^TH CROSS TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA 1^ST BLOCK BANGALORE 560034.

¶14

SMT C MUNIYAMMA W/O RAMANNA D/O CHIKKA MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT KOPPALA MADAGU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563131.

¶15

SMT C BYRAMMA W/O MARAKONDAPPA D/O CHIKKA MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8071 WP No. 5045 of 2025

¶17

R/AT OORUKUNTE MITTUR VILLAGE AAVANI HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563131.

¶18

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O C CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶19

SRI C HANUMAN GOWDA S/O C CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT MALIYAPPANAHALLI VILALGE KURUGAL POST VEMAGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT- 563101.

¶20

SRI C SRINIVAS S/O CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS PROFESSOR CUM HEAD OF DEPARTMENT MICROBIOLOGY,GNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS BANGALORE-560056.

¶21

SMT VIMALAMMA D/O CHOWDAPPA W/O VENKATACHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT SAHAKARANAGARA KOLAR CITY-563101.

¶22

SMT C INDIARA D/O CHOWDAPPA W/O R R DEVENDRA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT #74 7^TH MAIN 3^RD BLOCK AYAPPANAGAR K R PURAM BANGALROE-560036.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 17TH DECEMBER 2022,

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8071 WP No. 5045 of 2025

¶26

PASSED ON IA NO. 20, IN OS NO. 256/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by defendant No.3, challenging the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar on I.A.No.20 filed by defendant No.3 under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.256/2008, vide Annexure-A and consequently prays that the said application vide Annexure-G be allowed.

¶30

The case of the plaintiff is that he has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Along with the plaint, he has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for an order of temporary injunction against the defendants. The trial Court after hearing, has allowed the

¶31

said application and granted exparte order of injunction and issued summons to the defendants. After the service

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8071 WP No. 5045 of 2025

¶33

of summons, defendant No.3 appeared through her counsel and prayed for time to file the written statement. However, after a lapse of 14 years, she has not made any efforts to file the written statement. Subsequently, she filed I.A.No.20 under Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to file the written statement. The trial Court, by order dated 17.12.2022, rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶34

Defendant No.3 claims to be the co-owner of the suit schedule property. After the service of summons, defendant No.3 appeared through her counsel and prayed for time to file the written statement. After lapse of 14 years from the date of filing the suit, she filed I.A.No.20 seeking permission to file the written statement. The trial Court, by order dated 17.12.2022, rejected the application on the ground that defendant No.3 had failed to provide sufficient reasons in the said application for not filing the written statement for 14 years. Therefore, the trial Court

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:8071 WP No. 5045 of 2025

¶37

rightly rejected the application. There is no error or

¶38

illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶39

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶40

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶41