IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.5537 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. SIDDAVEERAMMA W/O BASAVANTHYAPPA GODERA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT MUKTENAHALLI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577217. … PETITIONER (BY SRI S.B. HALLI., ADVOCATE) AND:
N.H. RAMAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O NITTUVALLI DAVANGERE-577004. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2019 AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE REJECTING THE APPLICATION (I.A.9) UNDER SECTION 151, CPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in a money suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff in O.S.No.35/2014 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 08.01.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, whereby the learned First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere, has rejected his application in IA No.9 filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking permission to file the Written Statement albeit with some delay.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the petition papers, this Court grants indulgence in the matter because:
a) suit of the petitioner is for money decree, founded on a Promissory Note; petitioner had sought for rejection of the plaint by filing application in IA No.5 which came to be rejected on 08.06.2018; immediately petitioner has filed the application on 20.06.2018 seeking leave of the Court to file the Written Statement; the said application is supported by a narrative affidavit; and, b) the petitioner happens to be an aged lady; certain contentions as to non-availability of stamp papers on which the Promissory Note is drafted during the relevant period is taken up; though ideally speaking, the petitioner ought to have filed the Written Statement without waiting for the result of his application for rejection of plaint, why that was not filed is explained in the affidavit that accompanied the application; and, c) justice of the case requires that the petitioner be permitted to file the Written Statement subject on cost & condition; there is no legal injury that cannot be set right by costs; denial of leave to file the Written Statement would cause a huge prejudice to the defendant.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; petitioner’s subject application having been favoured, she is permitted to file the Written Statement within a period of one month or the next date of hearing of the suit, whichever is later, on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff within the said period, failing which, the impugned order now quashed, stands resurrected.
KTY Sd/- JUDGE