- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54185 WP No. 14925 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 14925 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS S/O LATE K.B. RAMACHANDRARAJ URS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT LEELA VIHAR 22/1 GOKULAM ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPUARM MYSURU - 570 012. ALSO AT EMBASSY WOODS APARTMENT NO.123, 6/A CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SAMEER SHARMA, ADV.) AND: PRAMODA DEVI WADIYAR W/O LATE SRIKANTADATTANARASIMHARAJA WADIYAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT THE MYSORE PALACE MYSORE - 570 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAJENDRA S, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 06.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE MAYOHALL BENGALURU (CCH-74) ON IAS NO. 8 AND 9 (ANNX-D) AND IMPOSE COSTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54185 WP No. 14925 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.04.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.VIII and IX in O.S.No.25185 of 2015 pending before the Court of LXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.25185 of 2015 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru seeking the relief of partition, declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. Defendant no.2 had filed I.A.Nos.VIII and IX in the said suit along with written statement with a prayer to reopen the stage of the case and to condone the delay caused in filing her written statement and permit to place her written statement on record. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54185 WP No. 14925 of 2024 allowed the said applications subject to payment of cost. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the averments made in the petition submits that the Trial Court was not justified in condoning the delay of nearly six years caused in filing the written statement on behalf of defendant no.2. He submits that the applications were not even supported by affidavit of the party. The order sheet of the trial Court would go to show that the learned advocate who was appearing on behalf of defendant no.2 was participating in the court proceedings. There is no material produced before the trial Court in support of contention that learned advocate for defendant no.2 was suffering from illness which had prevented him from filing written statement on behalf of defendant no.2. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ATCOM TECHNOLOGIES LTD., V. Y.A. CHUNAWALA & CO., - (2018) 6 SCC 639 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. K NEELAMMA V. SRI R JAYANNA - W.P.NO.10621 OF 2020 DTD. 04.08.2023. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54185 WP No. 14925 of 2024 5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent / defendant no.2 submits that it was not disputed before the trial Court that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of defendant no.2 was suffering from illness as stated in his affidavit. He submits that the order impugned is a conditional order and acceptance of written statement was subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff has accepted the cost paid by defendant no.2 and thereafter, the written statement has been accepted by the trial Court. Therefore, the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the order impugned. He submits that suit schedule properties are very valuable properties and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in accepting the written statement. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the petitioner is ready to refund the cost received by him and a copy of DD drawn in the name of defendant no.2 is also produced along with memo. 7. Suit in O.S.No.25185 of 2015 is filed seeking the relief of partition of the suit schedule property and also for declaring that compromise settlement dated 07.08.1980 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54185 WP No. 14925 of 2024 entered into between family members of the plaintiff in O.S.No.622 of 1980 as not binding on the plaintiff and to declare that settlement deed dated 16.07.1984 entered between family members of the plaintiff as not binding on his share. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant no.2 from alienating or otherwise creating third party interest in the suit schedule property is also sought in the suit. 8. I.A.Nos.VIII and IX were filed on behalf of defendant no.2 under Section 151 of CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act respectively with prayers to recall the order passed by the Trial Court and to condone the delay caused in filing the written statement and permit defendant no.2 to file her written statement. Along with the aforesaid two applications, written statement of defendant no.2 was also filed which is produced at Annexure-C to this writ petition. The prayer made in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court having appreciated the rival contentions urged on behalf of the contesting parties has allowed I.A.Nos.VIII and IX by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54185 WP No. 14925 of 2024 and it was made clear that subject to payment of cost, written statement of defendant no.2 is taken on record. 9. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted that the cost paid by defendant no.2 has been already received by the plaintiff and therefore, he is estopped from challenging the order impugned which was passed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KRISHAN KUMAR KHANNA VS. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS - 2000 SUPREME(SC) 1456 has observed that the Trial Court had passed the order impugned subject to payment of cost. The High Court was therefore, not justified in setting aside the order impugned because the contesting party had accepted the costs and therefore, would be estopped from challenging the order before the High Court. Similar view has been taken by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of SMT. SHOBHA CHANNABASAVAIAH V. M/S AERO CLUB - W.P.NO.13381/2013 DTD. 21.11.2013 wherein it is held that acceptance of cost in a conditional order would prevent the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54185 WP No. 14925 of 2024 party from questioning the validity of order after accepting the cost. 11. In the case of BIJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS V. MAYANK SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS - (1994) 6 SCC 117, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere acceptance of cost would not preclude contesting party from questioning the order passed by the Trial Court unless the said order is a conditional order. Similar view has been taken by Allahabad High Court in the case of MAYUR PACKAGING INDUSTRIES V. UP STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION - 2007(56) AIC 871. 12. Since the cost imposed in the present case is conditional, aforesaid two judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the present case. It is also noted that the plaintiff had not raised any contention in his objection filed to I.A.Nos.8 and 9 that learned advocate who was appearing on behalf of defendant no.2 was not suffering from any illness as alleged in the affidavit filed by him. It is relevant to mention here that in the affidavit which is filed by learned counsel for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54185 WP No. 14925 of 2024 respondent / defendant no.2 he has specifically stated that if necessary he is ready and willing to furnish the medical records to show that he was suffering with illness as stated in the affidavit. 13. It appears that since the plaintiff had not raised any contention in his objection to the applications that statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no.2 about his illness is false or incorrect, the Trial Court had not called upon the learned counsel to submit necessary document in support of his statement made in the affidavit regarding his illness to explain the delay caused in filing the written statement. 14. Be that as it may since the plaintiff has received the cost imposed by the Trial Court while allowing I.A.Nos.VIII and IX and the order impugned being a conditional order, the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the said order. Perusal of the order sheet in O.S.No.25185 of 2015 would go to show that issues were not framed as on the date of impugned order and therefore, Trial Court was justified in accepting the written statement. Issues were subsequently framed on 17.08.2024. A - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54185 WP No. 14925 of 2024 submission is now made before this Court that the petitioner is ready and willing to repay the amount of Rs.10,000/- received by him towards cost imposed by the Trial Court, such a request cannot be considered and the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 16. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15