- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26034 WP No. 23220 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23220 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE GOVINDAN, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs. 1(A) SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE VENKATESH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs. 1(B) SMT. DEEPIKA D/O LATE VENKATESH W/O SRI. SURESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.2683, 11TH MAIN ROAD, D BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A. BALAKRISHNAN., ADV. FOR PROPOSED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DEAD PETITIONER; V/O DATED 4.4.2025 P1(A) DECD AND P1(B) IS THE ONLY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF P1(A)) AND: SMT. YELLAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDAN, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs. 1(A) SRI. VENKATARAJU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs. 1(A) (i) SMT. ARASAMMA W/O LATE G. VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26034 WP No. 23220 of 2015 1(A) (ii) SRI. HEMANTHA KUMAR V. S/O LATE G. VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 1(A) (iii) SMT. SUNITHA, D/O LATE G. VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.G-1324, 9TH CROSS, HAL CENTRAL TOWNSHIP, MARATHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 037. 1(B) SMT. VENKATAMMA, D/O GOVINDAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.G-945, HAL COLONY CENTRAL TOWNSHIP, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 037. …RESPONDENTS (R1(A) (1TO 3) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 03.07.2025 NOTICE TO R1(B) H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.27.3.2015 IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.5 FILE DU/S 151 OF THE CPC SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT TO BE TAKEN ON BOARD IN O.S.NO.2142/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH NO.44) VIDE ANNX-E IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN TO BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WITH COSTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26034 WP No. 23220 of 2015 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.03.2015, passed on I.A.No.5 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short 'CPC') by the petitioner/defendant No.3 seeking permission to file the written statement in O.S.No.2142/2009 pending on the file of the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-44). 2. Sri. A. Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent/plaintiff - Smt.Yellamma filed a suit for partition and separate possession against her husband Govindan. After the death of the original defendant, legal heirs of Govindan were brought on record in the pending suit. The petitioner is the defendant No.3 in the aforesaid suit, he could not file the written statement within the stipulated time. Hence moved an application seeking permission of the Court to accept the written statement. However, the Trial Court rejected the same on the ground that written statement ought to have been filed within the stipulated time and there is an enormous delay in filing the written statement, that too when the matter is posted for further chief- examination of PW-1. It is submitted that the petitioner has a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26034 WP No. 23220 of 2015 good case on merits and unless he is allowed to defend the suit by filing written statement, great injustice and prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Hence he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Though the notice of this petition is served, on the other side there is no representation. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 5. That the original respondent - Smt.Yellamma filed O.S.No.2142/2009 against her husband Govindan seeking for the relief of judgment and decree of partition and separate possession and other prayers. In the said suit, the original defendant - Govindan died. Later, the legal representatives of the said Govindan were brought on record. The petitioner herein is one of the legal representative of late Govindan, who has been arrayed as defendant No.3 in the said suit. The records indicate that the petitioner has appeared before the trial Court on 03.11.2011. However, he could not file the written statement within the stipulated time and he moved an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26034 WP No. 23220 of 2015 application under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking permission to file the written statement, which came to be rejected on the ground of delay. 6. In my considered view, the trial court has committed a grave error and rejected the application. As no prejudice would be caused to the other side, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the original defendant who is the petitioner in the present petition is died and his legal representatives are brought on record in this case however the said legal representatives are yet to be brought on record in O.S.No.2142/2009. 7. This Court considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v/s Union of India1 and in the later decision in the case of Bharat Kalra v/s Raj Kishan Chabra2, as reiterated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association referred supra and taking note of the stage of the 1 AIR 2005 SC 3353 2 2022 SCC OnLine 613 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26034 WP No. 23220 of 2015 suit, I am of the view that an opportunity need to be given to petitioner to file the written statement. 8. Hence, I am of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed by permitting the legal representatives of petitioner/defendant No.3 to file the written statement in O.S.No.2142/2009 as the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the relevant provision of law held that the time stipulation of 90 days is directory in nature and not mandatory. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) Impugned order dated 27.03.2015 passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.2142/2009 by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-44) is set-aside. iii) Consequently, I.A.No.5 is allowed. The petitioner shall file written statement before the trial Court on or before 31.07.2025. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28