- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 30016 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: INDIRANAGAR CLUB, A CLUB REGISTERED UNDER PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960. REGISTERED OFFICE AT, 4TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 008. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR. M. NAGENDRA, S/O SRI MUNIHANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. CHANDRE GOWDA B. V., AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. B. CHIKKA VENKATE GOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.720/A-7, 9TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038. MEMBERSHIP NO.686. 2. MR. D. P. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. DHAGE PUNDALIKA RAO, RESIDING AT NO.3762, 13TH B MAIN, 11TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 BENGALURU - 560 008. MEMBERSHIP NO.657. 3. MRS. SHOBHA VASANTH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O. NARAYANAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.25, 2ND CROSS, 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 008, MEMBERSHIP NO.7033. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (CIRCLE 2), OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, BANGALORE DISTRICT, 146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. 5. THE RETURNING OFFICER, MR. E. MANJUNATH RAO, INDIRANAGAR CLUB, 4TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 008. 6. MR. JAIDEEP E. G., EGK TECHNOLOGIES, 297, RMV 2ND STAGE, BANDAY COLONY, GEDDALAHALII, SANJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 094. 7. MR. BNS REDDY, IPS (RETIRED) AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, PRESIDENT, INDIRANAGAR CLUB, AT NO.4TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 008, MEMBERSHIP NO.4311. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 8. MR. NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDENT AT NO.63/N, DARSHAN HOUSE, 2ND CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 071. MEMBERSHIP NO.4096. 9. MR. KOTA NARESH BABU REDDY, AGED IN MAJOR, INDIRANAGAR CLUB, AT NO.4TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 008. 10. MR. MUNIRAJU V., AGED IN MAJOR, 11. MR. ADARSH GOWDA, AGED IN MAJOR, 12. MR. AMAR PARAMPALLI, AGED IN MAJOR, 13. MR. AMARNATH B.L., AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 14. MRS. ANITHA PRATOOP, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 15. MR. SAMARTH PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 16. MR. SHARATH A.B., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 17. MRS. SAVITHA Y. PATIL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 18. MR. SHARATH KUMAR M., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 19. MR. ANUP VISHWANATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.10 TO 19 TO BE SERVED AT INDIRANAGAR CLUB, AT NO. 4TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 008 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.M VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 TO R19 IS DISPENSED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF C.P.C IN O.S.NO. 25693/2024 BY LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (CCH-74) (ANNEXURE -A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.2 challenging the order dated 19.09.2025 passed on IA.No.10 filed under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 151 of CPC in O.S.No.25693/2024 by LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 3. Notice to respondent Nos.4 to 19 is dispensed, as no relief is sought against them and they are the co-defendants along with the petitioner herein. 4. It is stated that respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court filed a suit in O.S.No.25693/2024 on 23.07.2024 for the relief of declaration to nullify the elections of the elected body. 4.1. Upon service of summons to the defendants in the suit, vakalat was filed. Due to the demise of the wife of the Secretary of the Club i.e., petitioner herein, the written statement could not be filed. 4.2. Thereafter, learned counsel for petitioner- defendant No.2 filed an application seeking permission of the trial Court to file written statement on 11.08.2025. Prior to this, i.e., on 19.07.2025, respondent No.2-plaintiff - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 was examined as PW.1 and the cross-examination of PW.1 was taken as 'Nil' and the matter was posted for arguments. 4.3. At that stage, an application came to be filed by the learned counsel for petitioner-defendant No.2 seeking permission of the trial Court to file written statement by condoning the delay. Learned counsel for respondents- plaintiffs did not file objections to the said application. Nevertheless, the trial Court dismissed the application by relying upon the judgment in the case of SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v/s K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Others reported in (2019) 12 SCC 210. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that he has no quarrel with the said law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment. However, the same was restricted and pertained to suits filed before the Commercial Court under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act'), which becomes mandatory and not directory. Therefore, he draws the distinction on the said judgment relied on by the trial Court to contend that a regular original suit filed is not in the nature of a commercial suit under the Act, filing of written statement at the time prescribed therein is not mandatory but directory and the same would have to be viewed and considered in accordance with law. 6. In the present case on hand, it appears that there is delay of eight months in filing the written statement. The reasons assigned by defendant No.2 is that the wife of the Secretary of the Club had expired and therefore, he could not file the written statement well within time. Hence, the reasons assigned and cause shown for condoning the delay is satisfactory, sufficient and same is accepted. 7. Considering the reasons assigned, this Court would have to take a lenient view regarding filing of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 written statement which is not unreasonable delay by the petitioner/ defendant No.2. Therefore, lenient view would have to be shown to the petitioner/defendant No.2 by permitting him to file the written statement and proceed further in the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs contends that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and to declare the elections of the elected party held on 30.06.2024 to be void and to set aside the same. The term of the elected body will expire in June – 2026. The trial of the suit is in the final stage and defendant No.2 had filed an application in I.A.No.10 under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC to permit him to file written statement by condoning the delay, which itself shows that they are prolonging and protracting the matter. Therefore, this Court will have to take a holistic view in the matter to see that the petitioner/defendant No.2 is provided with liberty to file the written statement, so also, at the same time, the plaintiffs shall also be given the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 benefit of quick speedy trial to see the light of the day or the outcome of the suit before the suit becomes infructuous as the suit is filed to declare the election as null and void. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall (CCH-74) in O.S.No.25693/2024, is hereby, set aside. iii. The petitioner/defendant No.2 is permitted to file written statement and the trial Court shall accept the same if filed and proceed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. iv. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit by the end of January – 2026. v. It is made clear that the trial Court is at liberty to impose cost on the parties for seeking unnecessary adjournments. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42162 WP No. 30016 of 2025 vi. All the parties are directed to cooperate with the Court for expeditious disposal of the case. vii. The petitioner/defendant No.2 shall pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiffs before the trial Court. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN,NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT: BHK