- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49047 WP No. 34091 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 34091 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MRS POOJA W/O N.MURALI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT ITTAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE KITHENAHALLI POST CHIKKABALLAPURA KARNATAKA-562 101 AND ALSO AT NO.32, 13TH CROSS SADASHIVANAGARA BENGALURU - 560080 2. MR.N.MURALI S/O MUNGARU NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT ITTAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE KITHENAHALLI POST CHIKKABALLAPURA KARNATAKA-562 101 AND ALSO AT NO.32 13TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGARA BENGALURU-56080 & PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LOKESHA M Y., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49047 WP No. 34091 of 2025 AND: MR JOSEPH FERNANDEZ S/O LATE FRANCY FERNANDEZ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.954/A, MOHAN VILLA CHURCH ROAD NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU-560 075 & RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SWAMINATHAN P. ADVOCATE AND SRI.M.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A NO 2/2025 AND 3/2025 IN O.S.NO.25582/2024 BY THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-73). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. 2. Parties to the proceedings are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49047 WP No. 34091 of 2025 3. The present petition is filed by petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 praying to set aside the order dated 16.10.2025 passed on I.A. Nos.2 and 3 in O.S. No.25582/2024, whereby the trial Court dismissed the said I.As. which are filed to recall the order dated 23.1.2025 and to permit the defendants to file the written statement. 4. On perusal of the order sheet maintained by the trial Court, it is seen that plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. Notice to the defendants is served and counsel filed power for defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 28.10.2024. The matter was adjourned to 22.11.2024 for filing written statement. Thereafter, time was extended for filing the written statement till 23.1.2025. On 23.1.2025, since the written statement was not filed, the written statement on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was taken as nil and the trial Court proceeded to post the matter for evidence of the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff was recorded on 17.3.2025, 4.4.2025 and 9.6.2025 and certain documents came to be marked and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 23.6.2025 for cross-examination of PW.1. On 23.6.2025 counsel for defendants sought time for cross- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49047 WP No. 34091 of 2025 examination. Since no grounds are made out and written statement also not filed, the trial Court noted the cross-examination of PW.1 as nil and adjourned the matter to 9.7.2025 for arguments. On 9.7.2025 defendants filed applications - I.A. Nos.2 and 3 alongwith the written statement in two sets and also memo adopting written statement of defendant No.1 as written statement of defendant No.2. The said applications came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 reiterating the averments made in the affidavits accompanying the applications contends that defendant No.1 appeared on 28.10.2024 and the case was adjourned to 22.11.2024 for filing the written statement. Thereafter, time was extended for filing written statement till 23.1.2025 and on that day, the Court noted the absence of defendants and posted the case for evidence by taking the written statement of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as not filed. It is further contended that during the relevant point of time, defendant No.1 was pregnant and was taking follow up treatment at Chikkballapur and that being the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49047 WP No. 34091 of 2025 case, on 1.11.2024 she was admitted to the hospital and on the same day, she gave birth to a child and discharged on 4.11.2024 and thereafter, she was shifted to her mother's house and due to the above reasons, the defendants could not contact their counsel and give instructions to file the written statement. Therefore, learned counsel contends that some bonafides are made by the defendants for delay in filing the applications and the written statement. It is contended that if the written statement is accepted by condoning the delay, no hardship and inconvenience would be caused to the plaintiff. These facts were not considered by the trial Court and dismissed the applications. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to allow the present petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposes the contentions advanced by learned counsel for defendants and contends that despite granting sufficient time, written statement was not filed with the malafide intention to protract the proceedings and now at the fag end of the trial, when the matter is posted for further arguments, I.A. Nos.2 and 3 are filed to protract the proceedings. Therefore, the trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49047 WP No. 34091 of 2025 Court by the impugned order rightly dismissed both the applications. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to dismiss the present petition. 7. As stated supra, the order sheet maintained by the trial Court speaks for itself the time taken by the defendants in filing the written statement and conducting case. However, having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for parties and the averments made in the affidavits accompanying the applications - I.A. Nos.2 and 3, it is seen that during the relevant time, defendant No.1 was pregnant and was taking follow up treatment and she gave birth to a child on 1.11.2024 and some amount of time is consumed due to the delivery of baby by defendant No.1. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to allow I.A. Nos.2 and 3 by condoning the delay and permit the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to file the written statement. However, the defendants have to pay costs for unnecessary adjournments and delay. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49047 WP No. 34091 of 2025 ii) The impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the trial Court on I.A. Nos.2/2025 and 3/2025 is hereby set aside. iii) I.A. Nos.2/2025 and 3/2025 in O.S. No.25582/2024 are allowed. iv) The trial Court shall accept the written statement filed by defendant No.1. The memo filed in the suit for adopting the written statement of defendant No.1 as written statement of defendant No.2, is also allowed. The defendant No.2 is permitted to adopt the written statement of defendant No.1. v) In view of the delay, petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each to respondent/plaintiff. vi) The trial court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously. vii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47