- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10773 WP No. 5397 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI WRIT PETITION NO. 5397 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HARINI W/O LATE KEMPARAJU K.L., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2. SRI. SRIDHARA K.K. S/O LATE KEMPARAJU.K.L AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. SRI. KRISHNA. K. K. S/O LATE KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 4. SMT. PALLAVI. K. K. W/O SHARATH BABU D/O LATE KEMPARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O. EACHAGERE VILLAGE KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428 5. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE CHINNAPPA D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ KASIYAPPANNA LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. VALAGEREHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428 6. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE SURESHA D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ KASIYAPPANNA LINGEGOWDA Digitally signed by KAVYA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10773 WP No. 5397 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O. KONASALE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428 7. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O LATE GOOLIGOWDA D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ KASIYAPPANNA LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O. MARASINGANAHALLI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428 8. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O T.MADESHA D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ KASIYAPPANNA LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O. EACHAGERE VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 428 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.P D SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMAR MILAN G. K. S/O GANGADHARA K.L. AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. PRABHAMANI K.S. W/O GANGADHARA K.L AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O. KONASALE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428 2. SRI. GANGADHARA K.L S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ KASIYAPPANNA LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O. KONASALE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428 RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10773 WP No. 5397 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER MADE ON I.A NO.4/2026 IN O.S NO.132/2025, DTD.13.01.2026 UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 R/W SEC 151 OF CPC, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR, (ANNX-D) BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, setting aside the order made on I.A. No.4/2026 in O.S.No.132/2025, dtd:13.01.2026 under Order VIII Rule 1 R/W S.151 of CPC, passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, (Annexure- D), being arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in law. ii. Allow the Dismiss the I.A. No.4/2026 in O.S.No.132/2025, dtd:13.01.2026 filed under Order VIII Rule 1 R/W S.151 of CPC, on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. It appears that the summons was served on the defendants on 11.08.2025 and 14.08.2025 as is reflected in the order sheet of 22.08.2025. The learned counsel for defendant Nos.2(a) to (d) and defendant Nos.3 to 6 filed his - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10773 WP No. 5397 of 2026 vakalathnama. Another learned counsel filed vakalathnama for defendant No.1 on 22.08.2025 itself and time was granted for filing written statement. It appears that the written statement was sought to be filed along with an I.A No.4 that was moved on 13.01.2026. By means of the impugned order of 13.01.2026, the learned Judge has dismissed it as not maintainable in view of the fact that the period of 120 days as prescribed under the 2025 Karnataka Amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC had elapsed. It was noted that the right of defendant Nos.2 to 6 to file written statement was forfeited. There is no error or illegality in the order impugned that would merit interference. 4. Be that as it may, the right of the petitioners to cross-examine witnesses and to make his arguments is not taken away as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo 1, subject to certain safeguards. 1 (1988) 4 SCC 619 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10773 WP No. 5397 of 2026 5. The Registry of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Trial Courts within fifteen days from today so that it can be placed on the record. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE KG