- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 42936 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. K.PREMA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE S. R. PRABHAKAR, S/O. LATE S. V. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A NO.199, III MAIN, 1ST CROSS, COCONUT GARDEN, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 075. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S. NAGARAJU, S/O. LATE SAMPATHKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT C/O M/S PATHI FINANCE PVT. LTD., NO.5, OKALIPURAM MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 021. NO.149, II STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 021. 2. S. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE SAMPATHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 R/AT C/O. M/S. PATHI FINANCE PVT. LTD., NO.5, OKALIPURAM MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 021. NO.149, II STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 021. 3. LAKSHMI, D/O. P. M. SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY, W/O. S. V. VENKATACHALAPATHY, @ S V PATHI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT KORATAGERE, TUMKUR, NOW R/A NO.5, OKALIPURAM MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 021. 4. T. THANUJA, D/O S V VENKATACHALAPATHI, @ S V PATHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, OKALIPURAM MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 021. 5. S. VENKATACHALAPATHI, S/O. LATE P. M. SAMPATHKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S PATHI FINANCE PVT LTD., NO.5, OKALIPURAM MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 021. 6. V. ASWINI, D/O. S. V. VENKATACHALAPATHY, @ S V PATHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, M/S PATHI FINANCE PVT LTD., R/A NO.5, OKALIPURAM MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 021. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 7. M. MALATHI D/O ITHA NARASIMHA RAO, W/O S MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.149, II STAGE OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 021. 8. N. MAHALAKSHMI D/O K. PANDURANGAM, W/O S NAGARAJU, R/A NO.47, CHINNA CHETTY STREET, TIRCHY, TAMIL NADU, NOW R/A NO.149, II STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R7 AND R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.8.2018 PASSED IN MISC. CASE NO. 152/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY AT ANEX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 ORAL ORDER This petition puts in issue the order dated 20.08.2018 passed in Misc. No.152/2011 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15), Bengaluru (herein after referred to as the 'trial Court') by which the trial Court rejected the applications filed by the original petitioner Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.No.1) seeking condonation of delay and application under Order XXIII, Rule 3(a) of CPC (I.A.No.2) seeking to set aside a compromise decree dated 22.03.2000 stated to have been passed in a suit in O.S.No.7760/1991. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The original petitioner -Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff had filed the above suit in O.S.No.7760/1991 against the respondents herein seeking relief of declaration that certain deeds of sale that were executed in the year 1991 by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 9 acting upon the power of attorney purported to have been executed in their favour by her husband, the defendant No.1 in respect of suit properties as illegal, null and void and not binding on her and for further consequential declaratory reliefs. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 3. The said suit is primarily based on the allegations that Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff was legally wedded wife of one Sri.B.K.Subbaiah, the defendant No.1 in the said suit. Defendant Nos.2 to 9 in the said suit are the members of a family. The immovable properties described in the schedule to the plaint belonged and possessed by the said Sri.B.K.Subbaiah defendant No.1. That the said defendant No.1 was mentally infirm and defective person incapable of protecting his own interest as such taking advantage of his mental status, defendant Nos.2 to 9 had created documents in the nature of various deeds of sale conveying suit properties amongst themselves. That in the said suit, Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff had filed application under Order XXXII of CPC seeking appointment of a guardian to represent the interest of her husband the defendant No.1. 4. The written statement in the said suit came to be filed by the defendants 2 to 9 denying the averments and allegations made in the plaint and further contending that Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff had herself filed a suit in O.S.No.4563/1980 claiming her half share in the suit properties and for permanent injunction against her husband - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 Sri.B.K.Subbaiah the defendant No.1 which was dismissed holding that she was not having any right over the suit properties. That the plaintiff thereafter filed a suit in O.S.No.127/1991 before the Family Court, Bengaluru claiming her right of maintenance over the suit properties and the said suit was still pending consideration. It is also contended that Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff had also filed a petition under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 in Mis.No.269/1973 seeking declaration that her husband - defendant No.1 was a lunatic. Thereafter holding elaborate enquiry, the allegations made by the plaintiff in the said petition were found to be baseless and accordingly, the same was dismissed. As against which she had filed a miscellaneous first appeal in MFA No.759/1976 which was also dismissed by this Court. Contending as above, defendant Nos.2 to 9 had sought for dismissal of the said suit. Things stood thus, a compromise petition dated 22.03.2000 under order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC came to be filed in the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.7760/1991 between Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 7. The said compromise petition was accepted and the suit was accordingly, decreed on the same day. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 5. Thereafter, on 22.02.2011, Smt.K.Prema - the plaintiff filed the present miscellaneous petition in Misc. No.152/2011 seeking to recall the said compromise decree dated 22.02.2011/ 23.02.2000 under Order XXIII, Rule 3(a) of CPC (I.A.No.2) alleging fraud, misappropriation and coercion. Since there was a delay in filing the said miscellaneous petition, the petitioner filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.No.1). By the impugned orders, the said applications came to be dismissed. 6. In the petition under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC apart from reiterating the averments made in the plaint, it is further alleged that the petitioner was not aware of the stage of the suit in O.S.No.7760/1991 and her newly engaged counsel on verification of the records came to know about the petitioner having entered into a compromise with the defendants of which the petitioner was completely ignorant of as she had neither entered into any compromise nor has she received any sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. as maintenance. Contending as above sought for setting aside the compromise - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 decree dated 23.02.2000. The objection statement to the said petitions was filed by the respondents. 7. Based on the averments made in the I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and the objection statements, the trial Court framed the points for its consideration: (1) Whether I.A.No.I filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be allowed? (2) Whether petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXIII, Rule 3(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is deserves to be allowed? (3) Whether I.A.No.II filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is deserves to be allowed? (4) What order? 8. It is also necessary to note that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, said Smt.K.Prema- the plaintiff is stated to have passed away on 27.04.2011. There upon one Sri.S.R.Prabhakar claiming to be a legatee under the Will alleged to have been executed by Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff on 31.03.2011 which is purported to have been registered on 07.10.2011 comes on record and prosecutes the matter by tendering evidence himself as PW1. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 9. The trial Court on appreciation of the averments made in the petitions and also extensively referring to the contents of the plaint in O.S.No.7760/1991 and the written statement filed therein, noted that the very ground on which the relief is sought is based on the alleged fraud played on the plaintiff in obtaining the compromise decree behind her back. The trial Court also noted that even according to the plaintiff/petitioner she learnt about the compromise on 08.12.2010 (also mentioned as 18.12.2010), when suits in O.S.Nos.3782/2010 and 3783/2010 came to be filed. The trial Court further held that even if it has to be assumed that she learnt about the compromise only then, yet she did not approach the Court within a period of 30 days as prescribed under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petition thus having been filed on 22.02.2011 was beyond the period of limitation which is after lapse of 11 years from the date of passing of the compromise decree and beyond 30 days from the date of purported knowledge. Accordingly, answered point No.1 in the negative. 10. The trial Court though having held the application as filed had barred by limitation, further proceeded to advert to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 the merits of the case on I.A.No.2 to find out if the petitioner had made out grounds to allow the said applications and having adverted to the material averments made in the pleading came to a conclusion that even on merits there was no ground made out by the petitioner warranting interference. Accordingly, rejected I.A.No.2 as well. Accordingly, rejected I.A.No.2 as well. It is this order which is put to challenge in this petition. 11. Learned Senior counsel Sri.Basavaraj.V.Sabarad appearing for Sri.Mahesh.R.Uppin, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submits that the petitioner who had filed a suit on the premise of her husband the defendant No.1 being mentally infirm and she having made an application seeking appointment of a guardian, was yet again mislead to enter into a compromise on 22.03.2000 by the defendants 2 to 9. He submits considering the vast extent of properties, subject matter of these proceedings and the terms of compromise which provided payment of a paltry sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance itself is sufficient to look into the extent of fraud played on her even though not a single rupee has been paid to the original petitioner pursuant to the alleged compromise. He - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 further submits that trial Court failed to appreciate that one of the suit properties namely property bearing No.7/12 situated at Tulsithota Road was in her occupation and the subsequent suits in O.S.Nos.3782/2010 and 3783/2010 which were filed by one Mr.Lokesh and Mrs.Archana claiming to have purchased the very same property as far back in the year 1998, had not come near the door step till filing of the suit. Thus he submits there was no occasion for the original petitioner - Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff to learn about the compromise for her to take action in time. That if at all the said property was the subject matter of the compromise in which the petitioner was residing, the respondents would not have let her continue to reside therein for over 11 years which fact itself is sufficient to indicate that fraud and misrepresentation had been exerted on the original petitioner. He submits that the trial Court though has taken these aspects of the matter into consideration and has also appreciated that the petitioner came to know about the compromise only on 08.12.2010, ought to have condoned the insignificant delay of 45 days in filing the application thereafter. Fraud of this magnitude ought to have weighed in the mind of the Court instead of technicality as held by the Hon'ble Apex - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 Court in catena of judgments, is his contention. He submits though the trial Court at the outset has held that the petition was not maintainable on the ground of limitation, it has yet proceeded further to advert to the merits of the case which is not permissible. He submits that trial Court thus exceeded its jurisdiction by holding things in the negative against the original petitioner. He relies upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the question of consideration of application for condonation of delay. (1) G.Ramegowda & Ors vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore reported in (1988) 2 SCC 142 (para 14) (2) Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat vs. G Arumugam reported in (2015) 3 SCC 569 (para 4) (3) Mool Chandra vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2025) 1 SCC 625 (para 22, 23) 12. Per contra Sri.Rajendra.M.S appearing for Sri.Vivek Holla, learned counsel for respondents/defendants taking this Court through the records, more particularly the averments made in the written statement submits that the conduct of the original petitioner Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff becomes pertinent in the case of this nature who is seeking to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in her favour in - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 condoning the delay. He submits that it is not that the petitioner is innocent and naive person as sought to be pleaded in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay. In that he points out that the petitioner herself has been litigating with her husband the defendant No.1 from the year 1973 and even much prior to that. He refers to the suit filed by the petitioner against her husband for partition, maintenance and also her attempt to seek declaration of her husband being lunatic under the Lunacy Act as far back as in the year 1973, the orders of rejection in the said petition was carried up to this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal in the year 1976 which also resulted in dismissal. He submits that considering these aspects of the matter which transpired at an undisputed point of time, the contents of the affidavit that she is not aware of the Court proceedings, cannot be accepted. He further submits that there is no dispute by the petitioner of she affixing the signature on the compromise petition and she has also not given the details and particulars of the fraud, misrepresentation alleged to have been exerted on her. Thus no case is made out for condonation of delay which is rightly rejected by the trial Court. He submits that reference to the merits of the case by the trial Court is to - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 the extent of ascertaining the veracity of allegations made by her in the application. The same cannot be found fault with warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 13. Heard and perused the records. 14. The suit in O.S.No.7760/1991 is filed by Smt.K.Prema, the plaintiff primarily alleging fraud, misrepresentation, fabrication of the records by defendant Nos.2 to 9 purportedly taking advantage of the infirm mental condition of her husband - the defendant No.1. The application filed by her seeking appointment of guardian to prosecute the matter on his behalf under Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC has apparently not been considered by the trial Court. Things stood thus, a compromise decree is stated to have been passed by the Trial Court on 22.03.2000, in terms of a compromise petition purportedly entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 and 7. However, application came to be filed under Order XXIII Rule 3(A) CPC (I.A.No.2) seeking to set aside the said compromise decree. Since there was a delay in filing the said application, an application was filed under - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.No.1) seeking condonation of delay. 15. Relevant therefore to extract the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the said application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.No.1), which are as under: AFFIDAVIT ”I, Smt. K.Prema, W/o. B. R. Subbaiah, Aged about 70 years, Residing at No. 7/12, Thulasi Thota, Bangalore- 560 052., do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:- 1. I am the petitioner in the above case and fully aware of the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit. I request this Hon'ble Court to read the averments to the main petition as part and parcel of this affidavit to avoid repetition of facts. 2. I submit that during the life time of my late husband, I had filed the above suit in O.S. No, 7760/1991 on the file of this Hon'ble Court against the respondents in this petition for the relief of declaration and such other reliefs in respect of the suit properties involved in the above case. The said suit was filed by me in order to safeguard my interest and the interest of the deceased first respondent, as the first respondent then was a Lunaitic and infirm; mentally unsound etc., we such the respondents 2 to 9 have taken undue advantage of the situation along with evil advisors named in the main petition in order to knock-off the valuable properties of me and the first respondent. At that time I had also filed necessary applications for the purpose of appointment of a court guardian for safeguarding the interest of the suit properties and to represent the first respondent for the reasons stated above. The Doctors concerned have already given their opinion that, the deceased first respondent was mentally unsound and his acts deeds and things was that of 10 years child. And therefore he is not in a position to manage his properties without the aid of a next friend or guardian and also filed such other applications and all those applications are pending adjudication, the respondents 2 to 9 have filed their objections to the said applications. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 3. I submit that, I am not well versed with legal proceedings and apart from lack of worldly wise knowledge, the respondents 2 to 9 have taken undue advantage of my helpless and Pathetic condition, have started creating documents as if the same was executed by the deceased first respondent. Even though the first respondent was not having knowledge about executing of such documents and their consequences. Hence those documents have no legal sanctity in the eye of law. On the strength of such documents, the defendants 2 to 8 have claiming their alleged right over the Suit-schedule properties, which is a part of item No. 1 of the plaint schedule properties. I submit that, in the said suit the respondents 2 to 8 have managed to get fraudulent decree by playing fraud, mischief, misrepresentation and without my knowledge as explained in the main petition. The said fact of entering into the compromise petition was not at all aware of by me. After entered into the such fraudulent judgment and decree, the respondents 2 to 9 are claiming their alleged right over the plaint 'A' schedule properties. Even I am not at all aware of the terms of the compromise and even the respondents 2 to 9 are not at all acting and complied with the terms of the said alleged compromise decree. 4. I respectfully submit that, the fact of the alleged and fraudulent decree came to be known by me in a suit O.S. No. 3782 and 3783/2010 filed by the persons by names Lokesh and Archana Lokesh for the relief of possession in respect of the property situated at Thulasi Thota wherein I am residing and which is also one of the subject matter of the above suit and the alleged compromise decree item. I have engaged my counsel to defend the above suits. During the course of the above said suits the counsels appearing for the above said persons have started submitting their case and canvassed about the terms and conditions of the alleged compromise decree and as if I am receiving a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from the respondents 2 to 9 etc., After hearing the same I was very much shocked and the same was informed to my advocate and my advocate after verification of the court order, came to know the alleged compromise decree said to have been entered into between me and the respondents 2 to 9. Even though I have not at all entered knowing fully well about the terms of the alleged decree. The respondents 2 to 9 are strangers to my family and how they are liable to pay maintenance to me. And so far I have not at all received such amount. After knowing the alleged compromise decree I have applied for grant of certified copy of the said alleged compromise decree, judgment and other documents. Now I am filing the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 annexed main petition for setting aside the said compromise decree. I submit that, I came to know from reliable source that the respondents 2 to 9 may at any time misuse the said judgment and decree and may deal with the suit properties adverse to my interest, to achieve their illegal goals. 5. I submit that there a se intentional delay on my Para 11412 in filing this Misc. Petition since I have no knowledge about the alleged compromise decree said to have been entered into between me and the defendants and the said fact was known by me as stated in the earlier paras. Till then I was kept under dark. I have got a good case on merits to succeed in the above case. Under the circumstances if the application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, as the said compromise came to be entered by playing fraud mischief, misrepresentation on me and without my knowledge. On the other hand if the application is allowed 1 will suffer irreparable loss and injury. WHEREFORE, I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to time the application on prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity. I, the dependant of this affidavit do hereby affirm that, this is my name and signature and the contents made above true." 16. As seen above, except the facts with regard to filing of the plaint and filing of the application, there has been no whisper in the affidavit either regarding the stage of the suit or the progress in the suit till filing of the said aforesaid applications. Interestingly, there is also no denial of the fact of petitioner signing the compromise petition. There is no whisper either with regard to the names of the counsels who represented the petitioner at the time of filing of the suit or at the time of filing of the compromise petition and/or at the time - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 of filing the present petition or the applications. Except regarding the petitioner purportedly learning about the alleged fraudulent decree upon filing of the suits in O.S.Nos.3782/2010 and 3783/2010 filed by Mr. Lokesh and Mrs. Archana on 08.12.2010 and her newly appointed counsel informing her on enquiry about the compromise decree nothing else is stated therein. 17. Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires sufficient cause to be shown that prevented the party from taking action within the time prescribed under the law and not beyond. It is well settled that it is not the length of the time which matters but the cause which prevented the party from taking action within the time prescribed (RAMLAL, MOTILAL AND CHHOTELAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LIMITED reported in (1962) 2 SCR 762) 18. Though as rightly taken note by the trial Court no explanation is provided by the petitioner for inordinate delay of 11 years from the date of filing of the compromise, even assuming that she learnt about the compromise only on 08.12.2010, there is no explanation provided for the further - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 delay in she filing the miscellaneous petition on 22.02.2011 either. Article 116(b) of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of 30 days to file an application challenging any decree or order from the date of knowledge of the said order or decree. If the knowledge as contended by the petitioner is to be taken as 08.12.2010, the said period of 30 days would expire on 07.01.2011, but the petition is filed on 22.02.2011, beyond the said prescribed period of limitation. This is not withstanding the fact that there is no explanation for the inordinate delay of 11 years, in the light of she not denying the execution of the compromise petition. 19. The reasons assigned in the affidavit as extracted hereinabove would not provide any cause much less the sufficient cause as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 20. In addition, as rightly taken note of by the trial Court while addressing the issue on point No.2 in I.A.No.2, the petitioner appears to have been at logger heads with her husband, the defendant No.1 with respect to the very same suit properties atleast from the year 1973 onwards. The trial Court has also taken note of the proceedings in Misc. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 No.269/1973 filed by the petitioner seeking declaration of her husband as a lunatic under the Lunacy Act; An appeal filed by her against the rejection of the petition in MFA No.759/1976 before this Court; A suit filed by her in O.S.No.4563/1980 for partition; A petition filed by her husband in M.C.No.52/1980 for divorce; All these aspects of the matter would only lead to irresistible conclusion that she was in complete know-how of the legal proceedings and so much to plea that she is not aware of the worldly affairs and legal proceedings. 21. Even in the Judgments of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on the point of limitation, repeatedly it has been held that each case has to be dealt with regard to the facts emanating there from. This Court on appreciation of the facts narrated above do not find any fault or error with the reasons assigned by the trial Court in rejecting the application filed seeking condonation of delay. 22. Though it is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior counsel that if the Court has negated the plea of limitation, it was barred from proceeding on merits. Said contention cannot be countenanced to attribute any fault on - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 the part of trial Court merely because it adverted to merits of the case while answering point No.2 inasmuch as normally when an application is filed seeking condonation of delay apart from the reasons assigned, it would be insisted to look into the merits of the case. As enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in all these judgments referred to hereinabove, technicalities of limitation pitted against the substantial justice, the substantial justice should prevail. To ascertain if there was a requirement of rendering substantial justice invariably merits of the case also has to be looked into. It is only in this context and to that limited extent the merits of the case have been adverted to and the order of the Trial Court has to be read only to that extent and not beyond. 23. The trial Court has also adverted to the fact that the evidence lead by PW1 who claims to be the legatee of the original plaintiff has pleaded ignorance about all the aspects of the matter. It is in the light of absence of acceptable material evidence, the trial Court has come to such a conclusion and rejected the applications. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:12118 WP No. 42936 of 2018 24. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, this Court do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the applications. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and the impugned order is confirmed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2