IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.52831 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
2. SRI SURESH, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
3. SRI UMESH, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE R/AT ANCHARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561 203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI V F KUMBAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SRI MAHESHA, S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT ANCHARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-5671 203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA V, ADVOCATE) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT DODDABALLAPURA ON IA UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.482/2008 DTD:23.4.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The defendants in O.S. No.482/2008 for a suit for a decree of declaration of title and consequential injunction, are invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 23.04.2016 rendered by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Doddaballapura, whereby, the application filed by them under Section 151 of CPC, 1908, seeking leave of the Court to accept delayed filing of Written Statement, has been rejected. After service of notice, the respondents/plaintiffs have entered appearance through their counsel who resists the writ petition.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, their application seeking leave of the trial Court for accepting the Written Statement sought to be filed belatedly could not have been rejected, since sufficient explanation is offered in the Affidavit that has accompanied the said application; denial of leave to file the Written Statement amounts to virtually granting the decree, as sought for by the other side, which ordinarily Court should not do and in any event; subject to condition of not seeking any adjournments and of paying some reasonable cost, the trial Court could have allowed the petitioners to file the Written Statement.
03. Learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. SCG CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS.
K.S. CHAMANKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & OTHERS, reported in 2019 SAR (Civil) 421, submits that the suit was filed on 22.08.2008 and after service of notice, the petitioners/defendants entered appearance on 13.04.2010; the petitioners filed their application seeking leave of the Court for filing the Written Statement only on 07.08.2015 and the explanation offered does not warrant condonation of delay and accordingly the trial Court has rejected the application which could not be found fault with by this Court. So arguing, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
04. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
I have perused the petition papers and also the ruling cited at the Bar.
05. The suit is of the year 2008 and the petitioners entered appearance through their counsel on 13.04.2010. The matter went on and on. The petitioners filed their application under Section 151 of CPC only on 07.08.2015 when suit had advanced to the stage of recording of evidence; the Court below taking note of the inordinate delay brooked in filing of the application seeking leave for filing Written Statement with no satisfactory explanation therefor, has made the impugned order, which does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. When the amendment of the pleadings that are already filed is not permitted after the trial of the proceedings commences in view of explanation to Order VI Rule 17, as added by Amendment Act, 2002, it is unreasonable to permit the litigant to file their very pleadings themselves after the trial had commenced.
06. In the above circumstances, the writ petition fails. However, it is open to the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings if they have any independent cause of action, on which they wanted to found their counter claim in accordance with law.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ/HB