The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the trial court in an original suit before the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, rejecting the application for condoning the delay and further be pleased to accept the written statement filed by defendant no.1. The Court observed that when the suit was at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence, the written statement was filed without explaining the delay in filing the written statement.
Brief Facts:
The suit of the first respondent/plaintiff is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property; partition and for mesne profits. It is submitted that the petitioner/defendant No.1 received a suit summons on 07.08.2007 and appeared before the Court on 08.08.2007. On the said date, at the request of the counsel for the first defendant, the suit was adjourned to 25.10.2007 for filing a written statement. Thereafter, for one or the other reason, the petitioner could not file a written statement. Finally, on 06.03.2021 when the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to file a written statement by condoning the delay.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that denial to file a written statement would amount to curtailing the right of the petitioner/defendant No.1 to participate in the proceedings. It was contended that the suit is at the stage of evidence of respondents/plaintiffs and not much progress has been made in the suit. Further, the learned counsel submitted that allowing the filing of a written statement would assist the Court in a proper appreciation of the relief claimed.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted there is an inordinate delay in filing the written statement. Even though the petitioner/defendant No.1 appeared before the Court, but failed to file a written statement within time. The written statement along with the application is filed after more than 14 years from the date of appearance before the Court. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the written statement.
The Court noted that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, the impugned order is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court observed that there is no explanation for a delay of 14 years in filing the written statement. When the suit was at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence, the written statement was filed without explaining the delay in filing the written statement. The only ground urged in the affidavit is that the petitioner/defendant No.1 changed her counsel. A change of counsel could not be a ground to condone delay in filing a written statement. Thus, there is no plausible explanation by the petitioner/defendant No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
Case Title: Smt. Narayanamma v. Smt. Yellamma & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. G. Pandit
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 21177 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Annaiah C. V.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Ravindranath M. N.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
