- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15516 WP No. 24864 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24864 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. B. S. PARASHURAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS S/O LATE BHARMOJI RAO NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD SHAMRAO COMPOUND BENGALURU-560 027. 2. DEEPAK P. SULAKHE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O B. S. PARASHURAMA RAO RESIDING AT NO.5033 BROOKVIEW DR, DALLAS, TEXAS, UNITED STATES-75220. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESH ARKALGUD SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MEENAKSHI P. RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O V. R. SHAMSUNDAR NO.12/7, 3RD FLOOR LALBAGH ROAD SHAMRAO COMPOUND BENGALURU-560 027. 2. SMT. SULOCHANA BAI AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS W/O LATE B. S. NARAYANA RAO R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15516 WP No. 24864 of 2024 SHAMRAO COMPOUND BENGALURU-560 027. 3. SMT. SATHYA PREMA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS D/O B. S. NARAYANA RAO R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD SHAMRAO COMPOUND BENGALURU-560 027. 4. SMT. GAYATHRI PATHANGE AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O LATE B. S. NARAYANA RAO R/AT NO.T-2, 3RD FLOOR LOHAN’S REGENT SUNDARAM MURTHY ROAD COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005. 5. SMT. PUSHPALATHA GUJJAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O SRI. RAVINDRA GUJJAR R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD SHAMRAO COMPOUND BENGALURU-560 027. 6. SMT. YASHODHA BAI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE P. S. DAYANAND R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD SHAMRAO COMPOUND BENGALURU-560 027. 7. BHAVANI D. SULAKHE AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O LATE P. S. DAYANAND R/AT NO.12/7, LALBAGH ROAD SHAMRAO COMPOUND BENGALURU-560 027. 8. M/S K. H. SHAMA RAO AND SONS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15516 WP No. 24864 of 2024 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.12 LALBAGH ROAD SHAMRAO COMPOUND BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT. 9. THE BANGALORE DRESS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.12, LALBAGH ROAD BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R9 –SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 21.10.2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 04.04.2024 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED ON I.A.NOs.56 AND 57 BY THE HON’BLE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-27) AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO. 8355/2017 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR WRIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.04.2024 passed on IA Nos.56 and 57 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15516 WP No. 24864 of 2024 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to recall the order dated 18.05.2019, permission to file the written statement, and condonation of delay in filing the written statement, dismissing the said applications. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff has contended that the defendants are in joint possession of the property, and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are enjoying the income from the firm and company. Therefore, they just want to drag the matter. He further contended that in the application for condonation of delay of five and a half years, no reason has been provided. Hence, the trial court has rightly rejected the application. 3. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.8355/2017 for partition and separate possession. The suit was filed in the year 2017. After service of summons, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any written statement. The written statement on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15516 WP No. 24864 of 2024 was taken as nil on 29.05.2018 and 18.06.2018, respectively. Thereafter, the issues were framed, and the parties' evidence was recorded. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not cross-examine the respondent No.1/plaintiff. After a lapse of 5 years, they have filed this application for condonation of delay. Even in that application, no reason has been provided. 4. In the interest of justice, to give one more opportunity, I am of the opinion that, by fixing a time limit and imposing a cost, the application may be allowed. 5. Accordingly, the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed on IA Nos. 56 and 57 in O.S. No. 8355/2017 by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is quashed, subject to the condition that the petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15516 WP No. 24864 of 2024 twenty-five lakhs only) to respondent No. 1/plaintiff by the next date of hearing. (iii) It is made clear that petitioner No. 2/defendant No.2 shall be permitted to examine any witness and cross-examine the plaintiff on the date to be fixed by the trial court, without seeking any adjournment. If he seeks any adjournment, the order passed by the trial court on 04.04.2024 will be confirmed. (iv) The petitioner No.2 shall complete the cross-examination of PW1 by the end of April 2026. (v) The parties are directed to appear before the trial court without any further notice on 26.03.2026. (vi) The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit by the end of December 2026. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 144