- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.10617 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT VENKATARAMANAMMA W/O LATE A GANGADHRI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2 . SRI G NAGENDRA S/O LATE A GANGADHRI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT SOMESWARA VILLAGE, SOMENAHALLI HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562104 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT S G ESWARAMMA D/O LATE A GANGADHRI, W/O SRI G S CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.337, 4TH ‘A’ CROSS, 7TH MAIN, II STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560078 - 2 - 2 . STATE BANK OF INDIA (FORMERLY STATE BANK OF MYSORE) HEAD OFFICE AT AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE, HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT THIMMAMPALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 – D/W V/O DT:15.09.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.26.3.2021 ON IA NO.6 IN O.S.NO.65/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GUDIBANDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 26.03.2021 on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.65/2017, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Gudibande (‘the Trial Court’ for short). 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants No.1 & 2 before the Trial Court, respondent No.1 herein is the - 3 - plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondent No.2 herein is the defendant No.3 before the Trial Court. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1- Smt. Eswaramma herein for judgment and decree of partition and allotment of the alleged 1/3rd share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties against the defendants/petitioners herein and also the State Bank of India. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiff filed suit seeking partition and allotment of her alleged share in the suit schedule properties. Upon service of summons, the petitioners as well as the second respondent entered appearance. However, as the written statement was not filed within the stipulated time, the Trial Court, by order dated 08.06.2017, recorded that the written statement stood not filed and posted the matter for plaintiff’s evidence. Thereafter, on 29.08.2017, the Trial Court opined that the suit as against the defendant No.3 was not maintainable and accordingly fixed the - 4 - matter for hearing on 13.09.2017. From 13.09.2017 till 25.10.2018, across 13 hearing dates, no further progress was recorded and no order was passed on the maintainability issue. 5. At the behest of the plaintiff, the case was advanced from 25.10.2018 to 01.10.2018, on which date the plaintiff filed written arguments on maintainability. The matter was thereafter listed on 12.10.2018, 23.11.2018 and 23.01.2019 for hearing the defendants’ side. On 23.01.2019, the suit was transferred to the Itinerary Court of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Gudibande. As the plaintiff failed to appear, Court notice was ordered. The Trial Court, however, did not decide the issue of maintainability and instead advanced the matter from 09.08.2019 to 02.08.2019 for consideration of I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff. By order dated 31.08.2019, I.A.No.2 was allowed directing notice to the third defendant to furnish the account number in which Rs.9,99,995/- had been deposited by KSRTC as arrears of death benefits to Late A. Gangadhri. Thereafter, in view of the Covid-19 - 5 - pandemic, sittings of the Itinerary Court remained suspended from 21.03.2020 till 04.12.2020. 6. Upon resumption, Court notice was once again issued to the plaintiff, and after service, the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence on 22.01.2021. On that date, the plaintiff sought adjournment, and the case was reposted on 20.02.2021, on which day she examined herself as PW1 and marked documents in support of her case. However, without affording the defendants an opportunity to cross-examine PW1 on the ground that the written statement had not been filed, the Trial Court recorded cross-examination as Nil and posted the case for arguments on 06.03.2021. 7. Realising the lapse, the petitioners herein/ defendants filed I.A.No.6 under Section 151 CPC seeking leave of Court to file their written statement by condoning the delay, explaining the circumstances. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. Upon hearing, the Trial Court by order dated 26.03.2021, rejected I.A.No.6. - 6 - 8. The Trial Court observed that the defendants Nos.1 and 2 sought condonation of delay of 3 years and 11 months in filing their written statement, contending that the delay occurred due to difficulty in obtaining documents pertaining to the suit. The plaintiff, however, strongly opposed the application on the ground that no written statement was filed for nearly 5 years despite the Court recording the default in the year 2017 itself, and that the reasons stated in the affidavit are vague, unsupported by any material, and hence frivolous. 9. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the records, the Trial Court found that though the COVID-19 period from March 2020 to March 2021 could be condoned, there was no explanation for the preceding 2 years and 11 months. The affidavit filed by the defendants did not specify what documents were allegedly awaited or why they could not file the written statement earlier. Since the plaintiff had already led evidence and the matter was at the stage of arguments, entertaining the belated application would seriously prejudice the plaintiff. The - 7 - Court therefore held that sufficient cause for condonation of delay had not been made out, and accordingly dismissed I.A.No.6 filed under Section 151 CPC. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Trial Court failed to exercise the inherent powers vested in it under Section 151 of the CPC and overlooked the fact that no prejudice whatsoever would have been caused to the plaintiff if the petitioners were permitted to file their defence. The Trial Court further failed to appreciate that the question of maintainability of the suit as against defendant No.3 had been kept pending from 13.09.2017 till 25.10.2018 across 13 hearing dates, and no order has yet been passed on that issue. In such circumstances, the observation that the petitioners had slept over their rights and had not explained the delay of 3 years 11 months is wholly unsustainable. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. In view of the above circumstances, it is relevant to rely upon the following Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court: - 8 - • 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 13. 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 - 14. This provision has come 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 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. 15. With the above discussions, this Court intends 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 Rupees) before the Trial Court for causing delay in filing the written statement. b) The petitioner has to deposit the cost of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30 days from - 10 - the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order before the Senior Civil Judge, Gudibande, failing which the order shall stand dismissed automatically. c) On compliance of the order, 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. d) Both parties are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court in disposal of the main suit. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GH