- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082 WP No. 104844 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 104844 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. GAJANAN S/O PARASHURAM DAIVAJNYA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/A: JOLAD ONI, KALAGHATAGI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT-581 204. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAYANA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. CHANDRAKANTH S/O RAGHUBA BANGLEKAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/A: TAMBOOR, KALAGHATAGI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT-581 204. … RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082 WP No. 104844 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Sri.Nayana Kumar., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. Notice to the respondent was ordered on 13.09.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Kalaghatagi on I.A. No.6/2024 in O.S. No.131/2023 vide Annexure-B. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. On 21.11.2023, the Trial Court passed an exparte ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing i.e. on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082 WP No. 104844 of 2024 15.12.2023. On 15.12.2023, the defendant filed Vakalath and sought time for filing the written statement and objections. On 12.01.2024, the defendant was absent and for filing a written statement and objections, the matter was adjourned to 02.02.2024. On 02.02.2024, the defendant was absent and again the matter was adjourned for filing a written statement and objections and adjourned to 27.02.2024. On 27.02.2024, the defendant was absent and again time was granted for filing a written statement and objections as a last chance and the matter was adjourned to 13.03.2024. On 13.03.2024, the defendant remained absent, hence, the written statement and objections were taken as nil. The matter was adjourned to 16.04.2024 for the plaintiff’s evidence. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately, the case was posted for judgment. As the matter stood thus, on 22.06.2024, the defendant appeared before the Trial Court with a change in counsel and filed I.A. No.6 under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC seeking permission to file the written statement. The plaintiff filed objections. However, the Trial Court vide order dated 23.07.2024 allowed the application and permitted the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082 WP No. 104844 of 2024 defendant to submit his written statement and adduce evidence. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is before this Court. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 6. The point that would arise for consideration is, whether the Trial Court is justified in permitting the defendant to submit his written statement. 7. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The order sheet of the Trial Court is furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-B. A careful perusal of the same would reflect that despite granting several opportunities, the defendant remained absent and he did not choose to file his written statement. Hence, on 18.06.2024 the Trial Court closed the plaintiff’s side evidence, heard arguments and posted the suit for judgment. Strangely, the defendant moved an application in I.A. No.6 under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC with a change in counsel and sought permission to file the written statement. The plaintiff - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082 WP No. 104844 of 2024 opposed the application contending that the defendant was not diligent in prosecuting the case and it was also brought to the notice of the Trial Court that the defendant had failed to submit his written statement well in time. However, the Trial Court allowed the application. The order passed by the Trial Court is furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-B. Except for stating that if the application is not allowed the defendant will be put to hardship, no reasons are assigned by the Trial Court. The Trial Court could not have permitted the defendant to submit his written statement. As already noted above; despite granting several opportunities, the defendant failed to submit his written statement well in time. Furthermore, the suit was posted for judgment. Hence, the Trial Court could not have entertained the application at the belated stage. I may venture to say that the Trial Court has failed to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5082 WP No. 104844 of 2024 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Kalaghatagi on I.A. No.6/2024 in O.S. No.131/2023 vide Annexure-B is quashed. 9. Resultantly, the Writ petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH/MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 65