[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Magme Techno Pvt Ltd vs M/S Prakruthi Groups on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14906
W.P. No.18600/2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO 18600/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. MAGME TECHNO PVT. LTD.
NO.23/C, ARUNAGIRI COMPLEX
BANGALORE BYPASS ROAD
NEAR BUS STAND, KAMARAJ COLONY
HOSUR, TAMIL NADU-635109
REP. BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY
AND ALSO AT:
Digitally signed
M/S MAGME TECHNO PVT LTD
by RUPA V
MAGME LEARNING BUILDING
Location: HIGH VIDYANAGAR, BOMMASANDRA
COURT OF HEBBAGODI, ELECTRONIC CITY
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560100.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K.R. ADV., FOR
SRI. VISHWANATHA SHETTY V, ADV.,)
AND:
M/S. PRAKRUTHI GROUPS
NO.575/A, 2ND STAGE
A BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560010
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. R. SHEKAR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR A.S. ADV., FOR
SRI. PARAMESWARAPPA C, ADV.,)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14906
W.P. No.18600/2021
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DT.7.10.2021 IN O.S 4450/2018 PASSED BY THE
LXXXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-85) (ANNEXURE-D) BY REJECTING THE IA.NO.1 AND 2
FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING RE-OPENING OF THE
ABOVE CASE FORM THE STAGE OF EVIDENCE AND TO PERMIT
FOR FILING OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.1 AND 2 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
07.10.2021 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed for re-opening
of the case from the stage of evidence and to permit the
petitioner-defendant to file the written statement in
O.S.No.4450/2018 by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (for short, the trial Court).
NC: 2026:KHC:14906
HC-KAR
2. Sri.Nagaraja K.R., learned counsel for
Sri.Vishwnatha Shetty V., learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit
in O.S.No.4450/2018 for recovery of money and in the
said suit the petitioner-defendant has filed an application
in IA Nos.1 and 2 seeking to re-open the said case from
the stage of evidence and permit the defendant to file the
written statement. However, the trial Court rejected the
applications solely on the ground that the applications are
filed beyond period prescribed to file the written
statement. It is submitted that the petitioner-defendant
has a good case on merits and if the written statement is
not filed great prejudice would be caused to the
defendant. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
3. Per contra, Sri.Anil Kumar A.S., learned counsel
for Sri.Parameswarappa C., learned counsel for the
respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned order and
submits that the suit being one for recovery of money, the
petitioner-defendant, after service of summons, failed to
NC: 2026:KHC:14906
HC-KAR
file the written statement during the stipulated time, he
awaited for the commencement of the trial and thereafter
moved an application, which is an abuse of process of law
and dragging of the proceedings. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondent and perused the material available on record.
5. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit in
O.S.No.4450/2018 seeking relief of judgment and decree
against the petitioner-defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.5,29,670/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization.
In the said suit, the suit summons was served and the
petitioner entered appearance, but failed to file the written
statement in due time. Thereafter, filing of written
statement was closed and the matter was posted for
evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant filed an
NC: 2026:KHC:14906
HC-KAR
application in IA Nos.1 and 2 to re-open the case from the
stage of evidence and to permit the petitioner-defendant
to file a written statement, which came to be rejected by
the trial Court by the impugned order. It is to be noticed
that the time stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is
mandatory in nature and in view of the same, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner-defendant is required
to be provided with an opportunity to file the written
statement as the right to defend the suit is a substantive
right available to the party in the suit.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 07.10.2021 passed on
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.4450/2018 by
the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set
aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed
NC: 2026:KHC:14906
HC-KAR
by the petitioner-defendant are allowed.
The trial Court is directed to accept the
written statement filed by the defendant.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
