- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51896 WP No. 5983 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI V. KEERTHIKUMAR S/O LATE VEERABHADRACHAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT KAVYASHREE NILAYA CONVENT LAYOUT SIDDARTHANAGAR EXTENSION CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI YOGESHA B POOJARI, ADV., FOR SRI RAVISHANKAR S, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI S BASAVANNA S/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT THOTADA MANE MUDLUPURA VILALGE UTTAVALLI OST, KASABA HOBI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 313. 2. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE LINGANNA MAJOR IN AGE. 3. SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O LATE LINGAPPA MAJOR IN AGE. 4. SMT. SHIVANAGAMMA W/O CHINDALAGAPPA MAJOR IN AGE. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51896 WP No. 5983 of 2021 5. SRI S RAJU S/O LATE SHIVAPPA MAJOR IN AGE. ALL R-2 TO R-5 ARE RESIDING AT 7TH WARD MUDALPURA EXTENSION CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 313. …RESPONDENTS (R-1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED V/O DTD 23.08.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-5 ARE D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHAMARAJANAGARA IN O.S.NO.78/2018 ON IA NO.8 DTD.03.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ALLOW IA NO.8 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT TO LEAVE TO FILE REJOINDER TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. 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 03.03.2021 passed on IA No.8 in OS No.78/2018 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagara. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51896 WP No. 5983 of 2021 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No.1, who is the contesting respondent, is served in the matter and has remained unrepresented before this Court. 3. OS No.78/2018 is filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court by the petitioner herein for recovery of Rs.9,77,500/- from the defendants with interest at 18% p.a. Defendant No.1 has filed written statement in the said suit opposing the suit claim. It appears that subsequently the written statement filed by defendant No.1 was amended and thereafter, an application under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to file rejoinder to the amended written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.1. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide the order impugned. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. The question whether a plaintiff has a right to file rejoinder to a written statement notwithstanding that no set off or counter claim was made by the defendant in the written statement has been considered by this Court in the case of Krishnamurthy vs. Hanumakka and Others - 2019 4 KCCR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51896 WP No. 5983 of 2021 3032 and in the said case, it has been held that even if the defendant has not raised a plea of set off or made a counter claim, if a request is made on behalf of the plaintiff to file a rejoinder, such an application is required to be allowed in normal circumstances. In the said case, this Court has observed that granting of leave to the plaintiff to file additional pleadings by way of reply/replication to the contentions in the written statement would prejudice none. Conversely, denial of leave is likely to prejudice the plaintiff although non-denial by him of the contentions in the written statement would not amount to their admission. 5. In the case on hand, the original written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.1 was subsequently amended after the application filed on behalf of defendant No.1 seeking permission of the Trial Court to amend the written statement was allowed. It is under these circumstances, IA under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the said application. Accordingly, the following order:- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51896 WP No. 5983 of 2021 6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.03.2021 passed on IA No.8 in OS No.78/2018 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagara, is set- aside. Consequently, the prayer made in application I.A.No.8 is granted. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43