- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1062 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.S.MAMATHA D/O.V.SUDHAKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. SRI MAHESH S/O.V.SUDHAKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SRI MADHUSUDAN S/O.V.SUDHAKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O.V.SUDHAKARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.24 BYRASANDRA, K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 093 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANJAN G.MURTHY FOR SRI SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT.KAVITHA H.A. D/O.LATE H.C.ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.232 'MARUTHI KRUPA', HAGADUR K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 066 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER SRI SUNIL KUMAR M. S/O.SRI MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, J.B.NAGAR BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD M.S.NAGAR BENGALURU-560 033 2. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS 3. SRI B.G.VASUDEV S/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 4. SRI B.G.RAMESH S/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SRI B.G.VISHNU PRASAD S/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 6. SMT.B.G.GIRIJA D/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 7. SMT.B.G.MANJULA D/O.LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 8. SRI B.G.NAGARAJ S/O.LATE B.V.GOPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 9. SRI B.G.VENKATESH S/O.LATE B.V.GOPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025 10. SMT.B.G.PADMAVATHI D/O.LATE B.V.GOPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.24 BYRASANDRA K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 093 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA FOR SRI H.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R-6, R-8 TO 10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2024 PASSED ON IA.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.25816/2016 BY LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH NO.58). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by defendant Nos.10 to 13 against the plaintiff and other defendants, who are the co- defendants before the trial Court. 2. The petitioners are questioning the order dated 11.07.2024 passed on IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in O.S.No.25816/2016 by LVII Additional City Civil and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025 Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners seeking to reopen the case from the stage of defendants' evidence to the stage of filing the written statement and permit defendant Nos.7 to 13 to file their written statement by condoning the delay therein came to be dismissed with cost of Rs.500/-. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that a suit was filed against the defendants for the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs. Thereafter, the petitioners filed IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the case from the stage of defendants' evidence to the stage of filing the written statement and permit defendant Nos.7 to 13 to file their written statement by condoning the delay therein. 4. It is the contention of Sri Sanjan G.Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Srihari A.V. for petitioners that after filing the suit for recovery of possession, the plaintiff has amended the plaint by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025 deleting the prayer for recovery of possession and has sought for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. 5. It is further contended that upon appearance, defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and also took up a plea that the suit is not maintainable. It is the further contended by learned counsel for petitioners that though defendant Nos.7 to 13 had entrusted the vakalath to the counsel, who was also representing defendant Nos.5 and 6. However, they have not filed written statement. The petitioners immediately approached their counsel and requested him to file written statement. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 to reopen the case and permitting them to file written statement by condoning the delay. The said applications came to be dismissed by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025 imposing cost of Rs.500/-, which is the subject matter of this petition. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the impugned order is wholly erroneous, contrary to law and facts and the learned trial Judge has rejected the applications mechanically without appreciating the reasons for condonation of delay and non filing of the written statement. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners were not aware of their non-filing of the written statement by their counsel and only when they came to know about the written statement is filed by defendant Nos.5 and 6, they immediately approached the trial Court and also tendered their written statement. Hence, it is contented by learned counsel that if the written statement is not taken on record, there would be no defence of the petitioners and they would not be able to conduct their case effectively without any pleadings. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned order and permit them to file the written statement and they are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025 willing to abide by the terms and conditions for expeditious disposal of the suit. 7. Per contra, Sri Ramachandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri H.R.Anantha Krishna Murthy for respondent No.1-plaintiff vehemently opposed the submissions and arguments put-forth by learned counsel for petitioners and contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. It is also contended that the applications are filed by the defendants after lapse of nearly 8 years and no reasons are assigned for condonation of delay. After making these statements, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that he would not have much objection in the petition being allowed on imposition of costs, and the impugned order being set aside solely on the ground that he is interested in prosecuting the suit and the outcome of the suit rather than contesting this petition. Therefore, he concedes this petition being allowed by imposing cost on the petitioners-defendants. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025 8. In view of the fact that respondent No.1-plaintiff does not have any objection to this petition being allowed and concedes to the same nothing much further survives in this petition and this Court need not delve into the merits of the matter. However, this Court will have to take into consideration the imposition of cost, so also, the delay having occasioned and the concession made therein by learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed; ii) The impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed on IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in O.S.No.25816/2016 by LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 filed by the defendant Nos.10 to 13 are allowed; iii) The written statement filed by defendant Nos.10 to 13 shall be taken on record; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49955 WP No. 1062 of 2025 iv) The trial Court shall proceed further subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- each by petitioners- defendant Nos.10 to 13 on or before the next date of hearing; v) The trial Court shall expedite the matter and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, considering the fact that, the original suit is of the year 2016. Ordered accordingly. In view of disposal of the petition, pending Interlocutory Application, if any does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62