[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The New India Ass. Co. Ltd vs Mohd. Abdul Rasheed on 23 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2591
WP No. 200341 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 200341 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KANDUR MALL, MAIN ROAD, S.V.P CIRCLE,
STATION AREA, KALABURAGI-585102.
(NOW REPRESENTED BY DULY CONSTITUTED
ATTORNEY, THE NEW INDIA ASS. CO LTD.,
KALABURAGI)
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH 1. MOHD. ABDUL RASHEED
COURT OF S/O MOHD ABDUL JABBAR,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: TAILORING WORK (NOW NIL),
R/O H.NO.11/94, TOPE GALLI,
HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585330.
2. LAKHAN S/O LAXMAN,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O H.NO.16/92, FATIMAPUR,
CHITGUPPA, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR 585412.
(OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE TATA MAGIC
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2591
WP No. 200341 of 2026
HC-KAR
CAR BEARING NO.KA-33/M-2948 AS PER RC)
3. KAMALAKAR SHAMRAV,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O 15-824/41, JANATHA NAGAR COLONY,
CHITGUPPA, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR-585412.
(OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE - TATA MAGIC
CAR BEARING NO.KA-33/M-2948
AS PER INSURANCE POLICY)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DTD. 21.01.2026 NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
05.01.2026 PASSED IN IA NO.I BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.977/2025 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME,
DIRECTING THE TRIBUNAL TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO
FILE WRITTEN STATEMENT TO CLAIM PETITION and ISSUE ANY
OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2591
WP No. 200341 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following
reliefs :
"Issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash
the order dated 05.01.2026 passed in IA No.I by the
I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kalaburagi in
MVC No.977/2025 vide Annexure-C and
consequently allow the same, directing the Tribunal
to permit the petitioner to file written statement to
claim petition and issue any other writ order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the
circumstance of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits
that the question that arises for consideration in this writ
petition is squarely covered by the order passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.203746/2025
disposed of on 25.11.2025.
3. In the present case, the petitioner had entered
appearance on 14.08.2025 and written statement was
taken as Nil on 16.12.20025. Subsequently, on
31.12.2025 i.e. after expiry of 120 days from the date of
petitioner's appearance written statement was filed along
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2591
HC-KAR
with an interlocutory application which was rejected by the
Tribunal.
4. In paragraph No.6 of the order passed in
W.P.No.203746/2025 dated 25.11.2025, it is observed as
follows :
"06. The Apex Court in the case of Kailash
vs. Nanhku and others, reported in (2005) 4 SCC
480, has held that though order VIII Rule 1 of CPC,
and the proviso thereto, caste an obligation on the
defendant to file written statement within time
prescribed therein, the provisions do not deal with
nor specifically take away the power of Court to take
a written statement on record, though filed beyond
time as provided for therein. The provisions are
directly and not mandatory. The condonation of
delay in filing the written statement shall be
considered depending on the facts of each case. That
in spite of the time limit provided under Order VIII
Rule 1 CPC, the Court is not powerless to permit a
written statement being filed."
5. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the impugned order needs to be set aside.
Accordingly, the following order:
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed
by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2591
HC-KAR
and MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC No.977/2025 is
set aside and the Tribunal is directed to take on
record the written statement filed on behalf of
the petitioner and proceed further in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77
CT:PK
