- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.8181 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NO.1481, 1ST FLOOR, SRI. SAI AMRUTHAM, 28TH MAIN, SOUTH END B CROSS, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 069. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, SRI. NAGARAJ RAO ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S RENOWN HOTELS & RESORTS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.304, 306, GOLD TOWERS, NO.50, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI. MAHESH TAYAL ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAVEEN G.S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL - 2 - AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN OS.NO.3601/2018 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO FILE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure-A) passed in O.S.No.3601/2018 on the file of the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short, 'the trial Court'). The Petitioner herein is the Defendant and The Respondent herein is the Plaintiff before the Trial Court. 2. The Brief Facts are as follows: The petitioner herein is a Non-banking Financial Institution with its registered office at Mumbai, Maharastra and a branch in - 3 - Bangalore, inter alia carrying on its banking business represented by its Authorized Officer. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, involved mainly in business of Hotel Industry and Resort Development Projects. The Respondent herein approached the Petitioner for financial assistance of a sum of Rs. 5 Crores for preclosure of loans from the State Bank of India. After verifying the credentials a loan amount of Rs. 3 Crores were sanctioned by the Petitioner, where Respondent had availed a loan of Rs. 3 Crores of loan under loan account no. 202419 on 31.12.2011 to meet the working capital requirements, agreeing to repay the said loan amount in 36 equated monthly instalments along with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. Additionally, respondent has also availed the loan of Rs. 20 Lakhs under loan account no. 202428 on 31.12.2011 agreeing to repay the said loan amount in 36 equated monthly instalments along with interest at the rate of 17% per annum. As per the Loan Agreement, the prepayment is allowed only after 6 months from the date of disbursement of loans and for - 4 - the prepayments, respondent was liable to pay pre-payment charges, between 6-12 months which is 6% of principal outstanding plus service tax/surcharge, between 12-18 months is 5% of principal outstanding plus service tax/surcharge and after 36 months is 2% of principal outstanding plus service tax/surcharge. The Respondent, accordingly, after paying the prepayment charges and closure of loans as required under the agreement, sought the refund of pre-closure charges levied by the petitioner amounting to Rs.9,03,246.16/- through an email dated 22.05.2012 which according to Petitioner is non-refundable. Subsequently, the Respondent preferred a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and sought for its intervention seeking the refund of the pre closure charges. The Banking Ombudsman then directed the Respondent to raise the complaint to the General Manager, Reserve bank of India as the petitioner is not covered under clause 3(5) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. Once, the petitioner denied the refund of the Pre-payment charges, the respondent has filed an O.S. No. 3601/2018 on - 5 - 28.04.2018. before the court below seeking for a relief of refund of Rs. 9.03,246.61/- being the foreclosure charges paid by the Respondent. On 06.02.2020, the petitioner advocate filed written Statement along with I.A. No.2 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and acceptance of written statement. The Court below on 23.03.2021, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the written statement was not taken on record by contending that though an opportunity was granted to the petitioner, petitioner failed to file the written statement on 05.10.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court. 3. Heard counsels for both the sides. 4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial court has failed to observe the fact that the procedure is handmade of justice and technical rules are not to be applied to defeat the justice. It was also contended that court - 6 - failed to consider whether summons were duly served to the petitioner as required under Order V of C.P.C. 5. It was further contended that the trial court has failed to consider that the matter relates to bank and whether the petitioner has acted in terms of the agreement or not and trail court ought to have also gone into the contents and reasons assigned in the application. 6. It was contended that the trial court ought to have given an opportunity of being heard, the petitioner being the financial institution. 7. In view of the above circumstances, it is relevant to rely upon the following Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court: • Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi, (2005) 6 SCC 705 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1195 at page 708 • Zolba v. Keshao, (2008) 11 SCC 769 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 601 at page 773 • Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co., (2018) 6 SCC 639 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 777 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 499 at page 646 • Sailendra Kumar Sisodia vs Rani Sisodiya & Ors 2024 SCC Online SC 4043 - 7 - 8. In view of the above Judgments, it appears that Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, provision does not deal with the power of the Court and also does not specifically take away the power of the Court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond time as provided for and also to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the Court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the Court faced with frequent prayers for adjournment. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC or any procedural enactment should not be construed in any manner, which would leave the Court helpless to meet extra-ordinary situations in the ends of justice. 9. This provision has came up for interpretation in a number of cases and the same was observed by the Apex Court time and again that no doubt, the words “shall not be later than 90 days” do not take away the power of the Court to accept written statement beyond the time and it is also held that the nature of - 8 - the provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantial law and further expressed that there is no restriction in Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC that after expiry of the 90 days, further time cannot be granted. The Court has wide power to make such order in relation to the suit. The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC providing for upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory not mandatory. 10. In view of the above reasons, this Court has opined that in the present case, the respondents have received summons and filed vakalath on 14.08.2018 thereafter the matter is posted on 05.09.2018 and thereafter the matter is adjourned to 05.10.2018 for filing written statement. On that day the defendants were called absent as unrepresented hence written statement of defendants is taken “as not filed” and Defendant filed I.A. No. 2 under section 151 of CPC on 06.02.2020 for condonation of delay to permit filing of written statement and the same was rejected on 23.03.2021 stating that as per the limitation Act, limitation to file written statement in 90 days on condonation which cannot be condoned after the limitation - 9 - prescribed. It appears that the petitioner filed the I.A.No.2 with a delay of 490 days (05.10.2018 to 06.02.2020) in filing the written statement i.e., after 90 days. It appears that the defendants are adopted any dilatory tactics and caused serious inconvenience to the Court, admittedly there is a delay in filing the written statement but the status of the main case is posted for further chief of P.W.1, it appears that there is no progress in the suit proceedings while considering the statement of defendants is taken as “not filed” i.e., on 05.10.2018. 11. It is observed that, there is no hardship and serious inconvenience caused to the Court proceedings. In view of the above observations, the impugned Order dated 23.03.2021 in I.A.No.2 is hereby set aside and directed the trial Court to receive the written statement of the Defendants. 12. With the above discussions, this court intend to set aside the impugned order with the following directions : a) The Writ Petition is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) before the - 10 - trial Court for causing delay in filing written statement. * --- *b) The trial court is directed to receive the written statement and the trial court is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, i.e., within eight months from the date of the receipt of this order. *c) Both parties are directed to co-operate with the trial court in disposal of the main suit. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv CT: UR *Deleted and corrected vide Court order Dt.05-12-2025 - 11 - Dr.KMRJ: 16.09.2025 ORDER On pronouncement of the Order, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and submitted that cost of Rs.10,000/- is deposited as per interim Order dated 24.05.2022. On perusal of the Ordersheet, it is noticed that cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) is not deposited with the Registry. Therefore, petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with the trial Court as Ordered in the main petition. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv - 12 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [M/S. HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD VS. M/S. RENOWN HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT LTD] 05.12.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2025 I.A.No.1/2025 is filed under Section 151 of CPC, by the counsel for the petitioner for rectification of the Judgment dated 16.09.2025. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is observed that on 22.04.2021, co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted an interim order subject to depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Registry within two weeks. It was directed as under: Issue emergent notice. Interim order as prayed for, till next date of hearing subject to petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only in the Registry of this Court within two weeks from which the likely costs are to be defrayed. - 13 - Interim order to be released after compliance of office objections. On 24.05.2022, co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under: This Court by order dated 22.04.2021 was pleased to grant interim order subject to petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Registry and also subject to compliance of office objections. Office objections have not been complied with till today. Finally, 10 days' time is granted to comply with office objections. Interim order granted earlier is extended subject to compliance of office objections. If office objections are not complied with within a period of 10 days, the interim order stands automatically vacated. On 22.09.2022, it is noted in the order sheet that the office objection has been partly complied and counsel’s submission was placed before the Court regarding remaining office objections. Even though cost was deposited by the petitioner on 04.05.2021 by way of demand draft No.032616, counsel for the - 14 - petitioner had partly complied office objections and counsel’s submission regarding remaining office objections was posted before the Court. By Order dated 16.09.2025, the petition has been disposed of and it is observed that a sum of Rs.10,000/- has not been deposited with the Registry and the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the trial Court. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/2025, it is stated that a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner on 04.05.2021 by way of demand draft No.032616 and a memo is also filed along with supporting documents to the said effect. Accepting the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed. As per interim order dated 22.04.2021, cost of Rs.10,000/- has been deposited by way of Demand Draft No.032616 dated 04.05.2021. Said amount of Rs.10,000/- in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned court. Further, in Page No.10, sub-column (b) and (c), the following sentence and words are ordered to be deleted: - 15 - “The petitioner has to deposit the cost of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, failing which the order shall stand dismissed automatically. c) On compliance of the order,” Registry is directed to rectify the same and the amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned court. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. This order shall be made part and parcel of the Judgment dated 16.09.2025 and Registry is directed to issue fresh certified copy of the Judgment. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18