- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:962 WP No. 12464 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12464 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GOVINDA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE G. A. ACHARYA R/AT DOOR NO.4-3-89, GOVINDA NIVAS, NEAR INDRALI BUSTAND, POST KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI – 576 102 UDUPI DISTRICT ALSO AT NOVELTY PALACE JEWELLERS CAR STREET, UDUPI – 576 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U., ADVOCATE) AND: BHEEMA SETHU MUNIVRINDA MUTT BHEEMANAKATTE, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, BY ITS MATHADHIPATHI SHRI RAGHUVARENDRA THEERTHA SHREE PADANGALAVARU, HAVING ITS BRANCH MUTT AT CAR STREET, UDUPI – 576 101, THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O MUKHYAPRANA ACHARYA R/AT PANNAGASHAYANA R/AT NEAR AMBAGILU POST SANTHEKATTE UDUPI – 576 105 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KESHAV M. DATAR, ADVOCATE OF C/R) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:962 WP No. 12464 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 28.03.2025 PASSED IN IA NO. VI IN OS NO. 919/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC UDUPI WHEREIN, IA NO. VI FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O VIII R/W SEC 148 AND 151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNX-A AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.919/2018 on the file of the III Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, is directed against the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.6, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 and Section 148 CPC for permission / leave to file additional written statement after condoning the delay was rejected by the trial court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the caveator – respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendant for recovery of vacant possession of the suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:962 WP No. 12464 of 2025 schedule immovable property and for other reliefs, interalia contending that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff and his tenancy / lease having been terminated by the plaintiff, who was entitled to recover possession of the property from the defendant together with arrears of rent, mesne profits etc., The defendant contested the said suit disputing and denying the plaint allegations but however admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. Subsequently, the defendant having filed the instant application seeking permission to file additional written statement by putting forth the plea of adverse possession, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order by rejecting the application as hereunder:- “ORDERS ON I.A.No.VI The defendant has filed the present application under Order 8 and Sec. 148 of C.P.C., seeking to receive the additional written statement by contending that, his father was enjoying the said shop premises for more than the statutory period and he too hard perfected his title over the same by adverse possession. In the written statement he has specifically stated that, he has been enjoying the written statement schedule shop premises since 1981 continuously, without any interruption, objection or obstruction by anybody including the plaintiffs and he had instructed his counsel that, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:962 WP No. 12464 of 2025 he has been enjoying the said shop premises for more than statutory period. By oversight in his written statement he has not mentioned the words adverse possession, although he had taken the plea as to adverse possession by stating the ingredients. In order to bring, his contentions taken up in his written statement, in consonance with the legal principles, he is filing accompanying additional written statement which is absolutely necessary. Hence prays to allow the application. 2. On the other hand, the plaintiff resisted the application by filing objection contending that, defendant has preferred O.S.No.751/2018 before this court being a tenant and seeking for permanent injunction. As such, there is no doubt that the defendant is a tenant. Furthermore, the defendant even in the written statement has admitted that he is a tenant. The defendant admittedly being a tenant of the plaintiff, is in permissive possession of the schedule property. As such the present application is not maintainable in law and on facts. Further submitted that, the defendant is seeking two prayers in the present application and the same is opposed to the Civil Rule of Practice. The defendant can only seek one prayer in an application, hence the present application is not maintainable in law. 3. Heard both side. Perused material on record. 4. On careful perusal of entire documents placed on record it appears that, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for the relief of possession in the year 2018. The defendant filed written statement on 02-04-2019. After lapse of nearly 6 years, when the case is posted for cross of PW1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:962 WP No. 12464 of 2025 filed the above application seeking that, condone the delay and receive the written statement contending that, he had perfect his title over the plaint property by adverse possession. On perusal of the written statement by the defendant in his case, he clearly admitted that, the predecessor of the plaintiff has leased out the portion of the building to defendant. When the defendant himself admitted he is a tenant when a person is in a permissive possession he cannot seek adverse possession. In this regard it is worth to refer the judgment relied by the plaintiff reported in 2024(2) SCC 590 Brij Narajan shukla Vs. Sudesh Kumar of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The hon’ble Supreme court in its para 10.5 clearly held that, The suit of the year 1944 was for the arrears of rent and not relating to any dispute of possession. The defendant respondents were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against the then landlords. There was no question of them claiming any adverser possession from 1944. The plaintiff counsel argued that, the defendant filed O.S. No. 751/2018 stating that, the defendant is tenant and sought for permanent injunction against the plaintiff. When the plaintiff himself admitted that, he is a tenant he cannot seek adverse possession. On perusal of additional written statement, it is clearly shows that, the defendants sought adverse possession. If the I.A., is allowed, no purpose will be served except wasting the precious time of the court. The Hon’ble High court already directed to dispose the suit expeditiously and the defendant not made sufficient reasons for delay and this the 2nd application filed by the defendant after posting for cross examination of PW1. It - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:962 WP No. 12464 of 2025 shows that, the defendant is dragging the suit. Hence in the above discussion, this court proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.VI filed by the defendant is hereby rejected.” 4. As can be seen from the impugned order, the trial court came to the correct and proper conclusion that having admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant was not entitled to put forth a diametrically opposite / contradictory / mutually destructive and inconsistent plea of adverse possession which is impermissible in law. 5. Upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:962 WP No. 12464 of 2025 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 91