- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1390 WP No. 482 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 482 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SREEKANTHI W/O. SRI. B. VASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GURU KRUPA NEELAYA, NO.18, 7TH CROSS, B.F.W. LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560 058, REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER, MR. B. VASAPPA, S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR HIREMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M. SHIVANNA S/O. N. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 855/49, SHINAKUMARA SWAMY EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE 1ST STAGE, DAVANAGERE TOWN-577 001, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MANOHAR V.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1390 WP No. 482 of 2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.7594/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE (CCH-44) AT BANGALORE; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-44) AT BANGALORE IN O.S. NO.7594/2013 (ANNX-A) AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO FILE AMENDED WRITTEN STATEMENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The question for consideration is whether this Court must interfere with the order refusing to take the amended written statement on record because it is presented belatedly. This question arises because of the impugned order dated 13.03.2020 in O.S. No.7594/2013 [Annexure-A], the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court']. The civil Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner [the defendant in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1390 WP No. 482 of 2021 the suit] for leave to file the amended written statement. The civil Court has opined that the petitioner has not filed amended written statement though there was no hindrance to obtain signature of the Power of Attorney for the written statement. The undisputed facts are that the civil Court has permitted the petitioner to amend the written statement and consequent thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also amended the written statement on 17.08.2019. On 14.11.2019, because the amended written statement was not filed, the civil Court has treated the amendment as ineffective and posted the suit for cross examination of one of the witnesses for the respondent. It is at this stage the present application is filed. This Court must opine that when amendment is carried out and plausible reason is shown for not filing the amended pleadings, the Courts need not take a pedantic approach. The petitioner has pleaded - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1390 WP No. 482 of 2021 bona fides in stating that she could not contact the counsel on record to sign the amended written statement. The petitioner, to bring out bona fides more effectively, could have detailed the circumstances that constrained her, but then, given the circumstances of the case and the nature of dispute with the respondent seeking declaration of title to the suit schedule property, this Court is of the opinion that the civil Court has not considered the circumstances wholistically and hence there must be interference. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] The impugned order dated 13.03.2020 in O.S. No.7594/2013 on the file of the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Annexure-A] is quashed. [c] The civil Court is directed to take on record the additional written statement - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1390 WP No. 482 of 2021 that would be filed by the petitioner and consider the same as is required in law. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-