B. Veerappa, J.

1. This is a defendant's writ petition against the order dated 15-7-2016 in O.S. No. 290 of 2013 on I.A. No. 4 on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Periyapatna, rejecting the application filed by the defendant seeking permission to file written statement.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract to enforce the agreement dated 27-6-2009 contending that the defendant had executed an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/- and has received advance of Rs. 2,05,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 65,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. In spite of repeated requests, he has not bothered to execute the sale deed and hence the plaintiff has filed the said suit.

3. The suit was filed on 21-10-2013 and the defendant appeared before the Trial Court on 18-11-2013 and filed an application seeking permission to file written statement. The said application was allowed and time was granted till 5-12-2013 to file the written statement, but the defendant failed to file the same within the time stipulated. Thereafter, the case was posted for plaintiff's evidence and the defendant did not chose to cross-examine the plaintiff and hence plaintiff's cross-examination was taken as 'nil'. When the case was posted for arguments, the defendant has filed LA. No. 4 seeking under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking permission to file the written statement contending that he was suffering from BP and diabetes over a period of two years and hence was unable to contact his Advocate to give instructions to file written statement. The delay was not intentional, but for the reasons stated above. Hence he sought for allowing the application. The said application was resisted by filing objections by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 15-7-2016, rejected the said application on the ground that though the defendant was granted time till 5-12-2013, defendant has not filed the written statement and has not produced any medical certificates to support his contention that he was suffering from ill-health during the relevant period. Hence the present writ petition by the defendant praying to set aside the impugned order and permit him to file written statement.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Sri Chandrashekar vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts of the case. Without appreciating the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application and has failed to notice that the delay was not intentional, but for the reason that the petitioner was aged about 76 years and was suffering from several diseases. Medical documents pertaining to the petitioner are produced along with this petition at Annexure-F series to showed that he was suffering from various ailments during the relevant period. Therefore he sought to set aside the impugned order.

6. Per contra, Sri H.K. Srivathsava, learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and contended that the defendant was not diligent to file the written statement within the time as contemplated. He further contended that the defendant had not produced any medical documents in support of his contention and hence the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application and hence he sought to dismiss the writ petition.

7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arise for consideration in the present writ petition is:

Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application seeking permission to file the written statement, is justified?

8. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments submitted by the