Karnataka High Court

Lokanath Rao Kadum vs Rukmeni on 3 July, 2024

                                           -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:24889
                                                 WP No. 22457 of 2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                     BEFORE
             THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 22457 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
            BETWEEN:

                 LOKANATH RAO KADUM
                 S/O. SHYAMA RAO KADUM,
                 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                 R/AT GAVADAGERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
                 HUNSUR TALUK,
                 MYSORE DISTRICT.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. N.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            1.   RUKMENI
                 W/O.LATE JAYARAMEGOWDA,
                 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

            2.   CHITHRA
Digitally        D/O. LATE JAYARAMEGOWDA,
signed by        AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
SUVARNA T
Location:   3.   CHETHAN K.J.
HIGH             S/O LATE JAYARAMEGOWDA,
COURT OF         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
                 ALL ARE R/AT
                 KALENAHALLI,
                 HOSA KOPPAL VILLAGE,
                 KASABA HOBLI,
                 K.R.NAGAR TALUK,
                 MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602

            4.   SMT.SUJATHA
                 W/O LATE VENKATESHA,
                 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                 R/AT HOSPITAL BLOCK,
                                -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:24889
                                      WP No. 22457 of 2022




     K.R.NAGAR TOWN,
     MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602
5.   A.S.DHANANJAYA
     S/O LATE ANJANIGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     R/AT ANJANYA BLOCK,
     K.R.NAGAR TOWN,
     MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602
6.   DEPTHI
     W/O GALI SHIVAPRASAD,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     R/AT DOOR NO.58/21,
     5TH CROSS, KAMAKYA LAYOUT,
     BANASHANKARI 5TH BLOCK,
     3RD STAGE,
     BENGALURU-560 050
7.   PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
     DORENAHALLI AND DODDE KOPPALU
     PANCHAYATHI,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     K.R.NAGAR TALUK,
     MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602
8.   EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     TALUK PANCHAYATHI,
     K.R.NAGAR TOWN,
     MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602
9.   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     ZILLA PANCHAYATHI,
     K.R.NAGAR TOWN,
     MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602
10. TAHASILDAR
    K.R.NAGAR TALUK,
    K.R.NAGARA,
    MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602
11. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
    GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
    VIDHANA SOUDHA,
    AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
    BENGALURU-560 001
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
    V/O/D 14.12.2022 R4-R11 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                                  -3-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:24889
                                               WP No. 22457 of 2022




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
21.09.2021 IN I.A.NO.12 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, K.R.NAGAR IN O.S.NO.274/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E,
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO 12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
HEREIN.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

The present writ petition is filed by the

petitioner/defendant No.4 aggrieved by the order passed in

I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.274/2014 dated 21.09.2021 by the

Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Krishnarajanagar, whereby the

Court below had dismissed the application filed by defendant

No.4 seeking permission to file written statement by condoning

the delay.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking the relief of

declaration and permanent injunction and also cancellation of

the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of

defendant No.2, defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3

and defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4. The suit was

filed on 10.06.2014, in that, defendant No.4 appeared before

the Court on 11.08.2014. Then he has filed the present

NC: 2024:KHC:24889

application on 30.08.2021 seeking permission to file written

statement that came to be dismissed by way of the impugned

order. It is the case of defendant No.4 before the Court below

that after his appearance, he has attempted to search certain

documents to file his written statement. After he got the

records he has come up with this application seeking

permission to file the written statement submitting that he

could not file the objections in time and the delay caused from

his side was inevitable, as he had misplaced the records

pertaining to the suit schedule property, as such, the delay is

not intentional one. He has a good defence in this case and he

may be permitted to file written statement.

3. The Court below had observed that the learned counsel

for defendant No.4 at no point of time has argued explaining

the cause for delay in filing the written statement and he has

argued about the maintainability of the suit. The Court below

observed that the learned counsel is representing a private

party, as such, he does not have a locus standi to argue on

behalf of defendant Nos.5 to 9 as to their interest and further

the counsel has made his appearance immediately after service

NC: 2024:KHC:24889

of summons on 11.08.2014. He had relied on the judgement of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zolba Vs. Keshao and

Others1. The Court below had observed that if the present

application is allowed and the 4th defendant is permitted to file

the written statement and the same is taken on record, it will

cause untold hardship to the plaintiff which cannot be

compensated in terms of imposing cost. The Court below

observed that the matter is in the conclusion stage and it

cannot be reopened and accordingly, dismissed the petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant

No.4 submits that as the defendant had a good case on merits

the Court below ought to have permitted him to file written

statement. If he is permitted to file written statement now, no

prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff but, if the same is not

allowed he would be put to lot of inconvenience and hardship

as plaintiff sought for the cancellation of the sale deed of

defendant No.4. He had relied on judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Anwar since

AIR 2008 SC 2099

NC: 2024:KHC:24889

deceased by LRs. and Others Vs. Sabir and Others2. He

submits that in this case, learned Single Judge had permitted

the defendant to file the written statement after nine years

from the date of service of summons. When the trial Court had

rejected the same, learned single Judge had allowed the

petition and permitted the defendant to file the written

statement. When the same was assailed before the Division

Bench, the Division Bench has dismissed the same as the order

of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any error or

illegality. Basing on the said judgment, learned counsel submits

that he will be going ahead with the trial on day to day basis

and he may be permitted to file the written statement

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent/plaintiff

submits that this order is passed in the year 2019 and in the

year 2019, the Court had observed that the suit is at the

conclusion stage and at this stage, allowing the defendant to

file written statement will cause lot of hardship to the plaintiff.

It is submitted that the suit is of the year 2014 and it is filed

about 10 years back and it would not be in the interest of the

ILR 2004 KAR 2759

NC: 2024:KHC:24889

plaintiff and the trial Court had rightly considered the

irreparable loss which would be caused to the plaintiff and

rightly dismissed the application.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

perused the entire material on record. The undisputed facts of

this case are that the suit is filed in the year 2014. The

defendant No.4 who is the petitioner before this Court had

entered into appearance on 11.08.2014 and the present

application is filed on 30.08.2021 seeking permission to file

written statement. Now, the only reason that is stated in

support of the I.A. is that he could not file the written

statement at an earliest point of time as he was searching for

the documents and as he could not find the documents. Finally,

after finding the relevant documents, now he is filing the

written statement and it is the case of the defendant that no

prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. This Court is not able to

appreciate the said argument. When the provisions of C.P.C.

stipulate the particular time frame for filing the applications and

a time frame is prescribed for every act to be done and in that

time, it has to be done. Whenever there is delay considering

NC: 2024:KHC:24889

reasons stated by the party. In the facts and circumstances of

the case, if the Court finds that such reason is a genuine reason

and in the interest of the parties can condone such delay. When

a relief is sought, the court has to look at the interest of both

the parties and balancing the same, the order has to be

passed. Now in this case, without any plausible reason, as a

matter of right and to the sake of asking, just like that, the

Court cannot permit the defendant to file his written statement

after 7 years from the date of his appearance. The judgment of

the Division Bench which the learned counsel has relied, did not

lay down any ratio which is binding on this Court. That order of

the Hon'ble Division Bench refers to the order of the single

Judge condoning the delay of nine years and it is confirmed by

the Division Bench. In the considered opinion of this Court,

when a litigant who is not diligent in pursuing the matter come

up before the Court without a valid reason, he cannot be

permitted to contest suit. In that view of the matter, this Court

finds no reason to interfere the order passed by the Court

below. Accordingly, the following:

NC: 2024:KHC:24889

ORDER

i. The writ petition is dismissed.

ii. On 14.12.2022, this Court had directed the

petitioner to deposit an amount of

Rs.15,000/- with the civil Court as cost

payable to plaintiffs. The petitioner is

permitted to withdraw the same.

Pending I.As., if any, shall stand closed.