Karnataka High Court
Dr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty vs Icici Bank on 25 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.5663 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
DR. BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY
(ALSO KNOW AS DR. B.R.SHETTY)
S/O LATE SHAMBHU SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
RESIDING AT 'ROSHINI',
NEAR CV NAYAK HALL,
KADRI ROAD, KADRI,
MANGALURU-575 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. POORNACHANDRA B. PATTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ICICI BANK
A BANKING COMPANY ESTABLISHED
UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER
OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ICICI BANK TOWER, NEAR CHAKLI CIRCLE,
OLD PADRA ROAD, VADODARA-390 007,
INDIA.
AND HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
ICICI BANK TOWERS,
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
MUMBAI-400 051.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
MR. VYSHAK KANNAN
....RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI. DHARMENDRA CHATUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 31ST JANUARY, 2022 IN COM.O.S.NO.614 OF
2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A;
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ petition is filed by the defendant in Commercial
Original Suit No.614 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (for
short, hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), challenging the
order dated 31st January, 2022, rejecting the written statement
filed by the defendant.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has filed suit
against the defendant seeking relief of permanent injunction.
The trial court issued notice on 10th July, 2020. The defendant
entered appearance on 10th August, 2020. However, the written
statement was filed on 02nd December, 2020. The trial Court
taking into account that the written statement is filed beyond
120 days from the date of the service of summons and in terms
of the Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed
the application, consequently, rejected the written statement.
The said order of rejection of the written statement dated 31st
January, 2022 is impugned in this writ petition.
3. Sri. Poornachandra B. Pattar, learned counsel
appearing for petitioner contended that in terms of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ petition
(Civil) No.3 of 2020, the impugned order passed by the trial
Court requires interference in this writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri. Dharmendra Chatur, learned counsel
appearing for respondent, sought to justify the impugned order
stating that the written statement is filed beyond 120 days as
required under the provisions. Therefore, he contended that the
impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper
which does not call for any interference in this writ petition.
5. Looking into the writ papers, wherein, the trial Court
has issued summons to the defendant on 10th July, 2020 and the
defendant received the same on 15th July, 2020 and entered
appearance on 10th August, 2020. However, he filed written
statement on 02nd December, 2020. Undisputably, during the
said period COVID-19 pandemic was prevailing in India and
taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Suo Motu Proceedings in Writ petition (Civil) No.3 of
2020 has extended the limitation period insofar as the period
from 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 + 90 days,
thereafter. In that view of the matter, following the law declared
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Suo Motu Writ petition referred
to above, I am of the view that the trial Court ought to have
accepted the written statement filed by the defendant in terms
of the law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, order
dated 31st January, 2022 passed by the trial Court is set aside
and the trial Court is directed to accept the written statement
filed by the defendant as the same is within the purview of the
period mentioned above. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ARK
