Karnataka High Court
Sri Gajanan vs Shri Chandrakanth on 19 March, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082
WP No. 104844 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 104844 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GAJANAN
S/O PARASHURAM DAIVAJNYA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/A: JOLAD ONI,
KALAGHATAGI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-581 204.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAYANA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. CHANDRAKANTH
S/O RAGHUBA BANGLEKAR
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by R/A: TAMBOOR,
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH KALAGHATAGI TALUK,
COURT OF DHARWAD DISTRICT-581 204.
KARNATAKA
... RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082
WP No. 104844 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Nayana Kumar., counsel for the petitioner has
appeared in person.
Notice to the respondent was ordered on 13.09.2024. A
perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served
and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the
services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in
person.
2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash the Order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Kalaghatagi on I.A. No.6/2024 in
O.S. No.131/2023 vide Annexure-B.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their status and rankings before the Trial Court.
4. The short facts are these:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. On
21.11.2023, the Trial Court passed an exparte ad interim order
of injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit
schedule property till the next date of hearing i.e. on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082
15.12.2023. On 15.12.2023, the defendant filed Vakalath and
sought time for filing the written statement and objections. On
12.01.2024, the defendant was absent and for filing a written
statement and objections, the matter was adjourned to
02.02.2024. On 02.02.2024, the defendant was absent and
again the matter was adjourned for filing a written statement
and objections and adjourned to 27.02.2024. On 27.02.2024,
the defendant was absent and again time was granted for filing
a written statement and objections as a last chance and the
matter was adjourned to 13.03.2024. On 13.03.2024, the
defendant remained absent, hence, the written statement and
objections were taken as nil. The matter was adjourned to
16.04.2024 for the plaintiff's evidence. Thereafter, the matter
was adjourned from time to time and ultimately, the case was
posted for judgment.
As the matter stood thus, on 22.06.2024, the defendant
appeared before the Trial Court with a change in counsel and
filed I.A. No.6 under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC seeking
permission to file the written statement. The plaintiff filed
objections. However, the Trial Court vide order dated
23.07.2024 allowed the application and permitted the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082
defendant to submit his written statement and adduce
evidence. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is before this
Court.
5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with care.
6. The point that would arise for consideration is,
whether the Trial Court is justified in permitting the defendant
to submit his written statement.
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not
require reiteration. The order sheet of the Trial Court is
furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked
as Annexure-B. A careful perusal of the same would reflect that
despite granting several opportunities, the defendant remained
absent and he did not choose to file his written statement.
Hence, on 18.06.2024 the Trial Court closed the plaintiff's side
evidence, heard arguments and posted the suit for judgment.
Strangely, the defendant moved an application in I.A. No.6
under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC with a change in counsel and
sought permission to file the written statement. The plaintiff
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082
opposed the application contending that the defendant was not
diligent in prosecuting the case and it was also brought to the
notice of the Trial Court that the defendant had failed to submit
his written statement well in time. However, the Trial Court
allowed the application.
The order passed by the Trial Court is furnished along
with the writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-B.
Except for stating that if the application is not allowed the
defendant will be put to hardship, no reasons are assigned by
the Trial Court. The Trial Court could not have permitted the
defendant to submit his written statement. As already noted
above; despite granting several opportunities, the defendant
failed to submit his written statement well in time.
Furthermore, the suit was posted for judgment. Hence, the
Trial Court could not have entertained the application at the
belated stage. I may venture to say that the Trial Court has
failed to have regard to the relevant considerations and
disregarded relevant matters. Hence, this Court deems it
appropriate to set aside the impugned order.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082
8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Order dated
23.07.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Kalaghatagi on I.A. No.6/2024 in O.S. No.131/2023 vide
Annexure-B is quashed.
9. Resultantly, the Writ petition is allowed.
Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending
interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim
order if any granted by this Court stands discharged.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
RH/MRP
