IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.6436/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN T. CHINNASWAMY REDDY S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT No.176, 3RD CROSS 18TH MAIN, KORAMANGALA LAYOUT BANGALORE-572129 (By Sri MALLA READDY B.V, ADVOCATE) AND 1. RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE VEERA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-DISTRICT-562 106 2. NANJAMMA W/O LATE VEERA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT MARSOOR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK PIN-562 106 3. V PAPA REDDY S/O LATE VEERA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT MARSOOR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK PIN-562 106 …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (By Sri Y.K.NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 Notice to R.2 & 3 dispensed with v/o Dt: 25.02.2015) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 (ANNEXURE-K) PASSED ON I.A.No.X IN OS No.504/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT ANEKAL, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP along with I.A.No.2/2016, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is listed for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group for considering I.A.No.2/2016, which is filed by the petitioner seeking vacating the stay order granted by this Court on 20.06.2016 and which has subsequently been extended on various dates.
2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.3 in O.S.No.504/2007, which is pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, presently at Anekal. That suit has been filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. After the filing of the plaint and the written statement, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment of the plaint. By order dated 30.05.2013, that application was dismissed. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1- plaintiff filed WP No.24499/2013 before this Court. On 06.09.2013, this Court dismissed the writ petition by observing that the tenor of the amendment discloses that it is a reply to the written statement filed by defendant No.3 in the suit, which is not permissible under law. Moreover, the aforesaid application was filed four years after filing of the written statement by defendant No.3. Thereafter, on 06.01.2014, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to file reply to the written statement of defendant No.3-petitioner herein. By the impugned order dated 23.01.2015, that application has been allowed. Being aggrieved, defendant No.3 in the suit has preferred this writ petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 both on the application as well as on the main petition at length and perused the material on record.
4. Petitioner’s counsel would submit that an application under Section 151 of CPC or for that matter under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC is not maintainable once the written statement has been filed by the defendant in a suit so as to file a reply or a replication. He contended that at best, plaintiff could have sought an amendment to the plaint and that in the instant case such an amendment has also been rejected, which order has been confirmed by this Court and, therefore, the respondent No.1-plaintiff could not have thereafter filed a reply to the written statement. He further submitted that the impugned order is cryptic, bereft of any reasoning and on that ground also, it may be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order and has contended that such a reply is maintainable. The reply is in order to clarify what has been stated in the written statement that filing of a subsequent pleading is permissible, with the leave of the Court. The trial Court was justified in granting such a leave, that there is no merit in the impugned order and that no prejudice would be caused to defendant No.3 herein on account of the replication filed by respondent No.3-plaintiff.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, particularly, the impugned order, it is noted that such an order is not only cryptic, but also bereft of any reasoning. The same reads as under;
“ Plaintiff has filed IA No.10 for seeking permission to file reply to the written statement filed by the defendant No.3. Hence, IA No.10 is allowed and reply filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant No.3 is taken on record. Issues by: 24-03-2015.”
Of course, from the said order, it does not emanate as to what the petitioner, who is defendant No.3 in the suit, contended with regard to the very maintainability of the application as such. Be that as it may. It is also held that the impugned order being bereft of any reasoning would have to be quashed on that short ground alone.
7. Hence, the order dated 23.01.2015 is quashed.
The trial Court is directed to reconsider the application and, therefore, all contentions of both sides are left open.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
In the circumstances, the stay granted by this Court stands vacated. I.A.No.2/2016 is accordingly disposed.
It is noted that the suit is of the year 2007 and the matter is still at the stage of pleadings and the trial has not yet commenced.
In the circumstances, all parties to the suit are directed to co-operate with the trial Court for a speedy disposal of the suit. The trial Court also to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Sd/- JUDGE mv