ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION RELIGIOUS MINORITY CHARITABLE TRUST v. M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
WP/20689/2022 · 2026-09-11
Sachin Shankar Magadum
Original Suitbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 40762 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 40762 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010475802022 NC: 2026:KHC:49880 WP No. 20689 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 20689 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION RELIGIOUS MINORITY CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1882 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR, YENEPOYA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, BALMATTA, MANGALORE-575 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR. YENEPOYA ABDULLA KUNHI. B. A., AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O. YENEPOYA MOIDEEN KUNHI, DERALAKATTE, MANGALORE-575 006. …PETITIONER
(BY KUMARI. ASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, INDIAN HABITAT CENTRE COMPLEX, HUDCO BHAVAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.
2.
M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL CHIEF, MANIPAL CENTRE, 7TH FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK, NO. 47, DICKENSON ROAD,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010475802022 NC: 2026:KHC:49880 WP No. 20689 of 2022
BANGALORE-560 042. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 05.08.2022 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MANGALURU ON I.A.NO.IV IN COM.O.S.NO.490/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, WHEREBY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, WITH GROSS ILLEGALITY, IRREGULARITY AND WITH PERVERSITY PROCEEDED TO ACCEPT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN AS 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS IN UTTER CONTRAVENTION OF THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AS AMENDED AND THEREBY THE SAID WRITTEN STATEMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS IS LIABLE TO BE TAKEN OFF FROM THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MANGALURU IN COM O.S.NO.490/2021; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of the learned Judge, passed on I.A.No. 4, filed under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC"), condoning the Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010475802022 NC: 2026:KHC:49880 WP No. 20689 of 2022
delay and permitting the defendants to file written statement, which is now taken on record.
2. Heard the petitioner's counsel and the counsel appearing to the respondents. Perused the
order impugned.
3. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff has made a vehement submission that the respondents/defendants were served with summons on 27.01.2022 and, therefore, the written statement having been filed beyond the prescribed period of 120 days, the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to receive the same by invoking its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention.
4. On perusal of paragraph No.7 of the impugned
order, it is evident that the learned Trial Judge has examined the relevant facts, particularly the date on which summons were served upon the respondents/defendants. Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010475802022 NC: 2026:KHC:49880 WP No. 20689 of 2022
It is not in dispute that summons were served on
27.01.2022. However, the said period fell within the subsistence of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending and excluding the period of limitation on account of the unprecedented circumstances prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The said benefit continued to operate until 28.02.2022. Consequently, the learned Trial Court was justified in taking 28.02.2022 as the relevant cut-off date for computation of the period available to the defendants for filing their written statement. 5. If 28.02.2022 is taken as the commencing point for computation of the period, the question of the defendants having forfeited their right to file the written statement within the period contemplated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC has to be considered in that context. The statutory scheme, as it then stood, prescribed an initial period of 30 days and permitted the Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010475802022 NC: 2026:KHC:49880 WP No. 20689 of 2022
Court, for reasons to be recorded, to extend the time for filing the written statement, subject to the outer limit prescribed therein. The legal position governing the consequences of expiry of the prescribed period and the extent of the Court’s discretion has also to be considered having regard to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the pandemic period. 6. In the present case, the suit is one for recovery of money. The consequence of refusing to receive the written statement would be to deny the respondents/defendants an opportunity to place their defence on record and contest the claim on merits. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the benefit flowing from the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court operated in favour of the respondents/defendants and the learned Trial Judge has considered the relevant dates while exercising discretion, Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010475802022 NC: 2026:KHC:49880 WP No. 20689 of 2022
this Court finds no justification to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 7.
The learned Trial Judge, having regard to the commencement of the period from 28.02.2022 and the circumstances in which the written statement came to be filed, has exercised the discretion vested in the Court in a judicious manner. No jurisdictional error or perversity is demonstrated in the impugned
order warranting interference by this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified