- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28041 W.P. No.7351/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.7351/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED 50 YEARS R/AT. JAGANATHA PURA BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMKUR TOWN TUMAKURU-572101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. ANJAN KUMAR S/O RAMESH AGED 12 YEARS MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN BY NAME SMT. SAVITHA W/O RAMESH AGED 36 YEARS BOTH ARE NOW R/AT NITTUR VILLAGE, BEHIND MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST-572216. 2. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED 73 YEARS. 3. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED 54 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28041 W.P. No.7351/2022 4. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED 54 YEARS. 5. HEMA D/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED 50 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT. JAGANATHA PURA BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU-572101. 6. MANGALA D/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT HANUMANTHAPURA TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:05.04.2022, NOTICE TO R2 TO R6 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2022 PASSED ON IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O IX RULE 7 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.472/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO REFUSAL TO TAKE WRITTEN STATEMENT ON RECORD FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28041 W.P. No.7351/2022 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2022 passed in O.S.No.472/2016 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is defendant No.6 in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession. The petitioner- defendant No.6 was served with summons and was placed ex parte on 21.08.2019 and thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), was filed on 04.01.2022 which came to be allowed by the Trial Court on 11.01.2022 on cost of Rs.1,000/-. However, the Court has refused to accept the written statement on the ground that it is beyond the time period stipulated. It is submitted that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 were also placed ex parte, their application was allowed on 29.01.2022 and their written statement was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28041 W.P. No.7351/2022 also accepted. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by directing the Trial Court to accept the written statement filed by the defendant No.6. 3. Per contra, Sri.V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on both the sides and perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.472/2016 for the relief of partition and separate possession. The petitioner herein was arrayed as defendant No.6, the summons of the Trial Court in the aforesaid suit was served on him and he was placed ex parte vide order dated 21.08.2019. Thereafter, the defendant No.6-petitioner herein has filed an application on 04.01.2022 under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC to recall and set aside the ex parte order. It is to be noticed that along with the application, the defendant No.6 has filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28041 W.P. No.7351/2022 the written statement as well. The Trial Court, on 11.01.2022 allowed the application, set aside the ex parte order on cost of Rs.1,000/-, however, it has declined to accept the written statement on the ground that the time stipulated is already lapsed. It is also to be noticed that the law contemplates that the written statement has to be filed within a period of 90 days. However, that contemplation is not mandatory but is directory in nature. Considering the same and that the suit being a suit for partition, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The Trial Court is directed to accept the written statement filed by the defendant No.6 on record and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34