The defendants deserved an opportunity to file the Written Statement, but should pay costs for the delay.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present respondent (plaintiff) had instituted a suit against the present appellants (defendants) in O.S.No.185/2015 in the Court of the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Trial Court) for the relief of permanent injunction with respect to the suit schedule property which is said to be a House property bearing No.69, Konanakunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 40 ft. x 40 ft.

2. The defendants in the Trial Court (who are the appellants herein) though appeared through their counsel, did not file their Written Statement in-time. Taking that the defendants failed to file the Written Statement, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence of the plaintiff and after R.F.A.No.1825/2019 hearing their arguments, vide its judgment dtd. 6/7/2019, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in the Trial Court have preferred the present appeal.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, due to the death of appellant No.1, the appeal of the appellant No.1 came to be abated. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellant No.1 is only a formal party who was the vendor of the suit schedule property to the appellant No.2, as such, the right to sue survives for the appellant No.2 alone against the respondent (plaintiff). The said submission is not being opposed to by the learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff).

4. Though this matter is listed for its admission, however, with the consent from both side, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.

5. The caveator/respondent herein (plaintiff) is being represented by his learned counsel.

6. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned judgment. R.F.A.No.1825/2019

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are: i] Whether the Trial Court was justified in not receiving the Written Statement said to have been filed by the defendants along with I.A.Nos.5 and 6? ii] Whether the impugned judgment sustains which is passed without disposing of the interlocutory applications - I.A.Nos.1, 3 and 4, said to have been filed by the parties in the Original Suit? iii] Whether the impugned judgment warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

9. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, he had purchased the suit schedule property from one Sri. Anjanappa and had registered Sale Deed dtd. 30/11/1983. Accordingly, the khatha was mutated in his name and he was paying the necessary taxes to the concerned authorities. Throughout he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, he R.F.A.No.1825/2019 had also mortgaged the title deeds of the suit property and availed a loan from a Financial Institution and had put up construction in the suit schedule property and leased it to the tenants. The defendants who had no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property, were trying to interfere in his lawful possession of the suit property, which constrained him to institute a suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction.

10. As observed above, the defendants, though appeared through their counsel, did not file their Written Statement, as such, the Trial Court by its order dtd. 20/4/2015 took that the defendants have not filed their Written Statement and proceeded further in the matter. However, of-late, the defendants filed interlocutory applications - I.A.Nos.5 and 6, both under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the CPC") seeking recalling of the order dtd. 20/4/2015 and permitting the defendants to file their Written Statement. According to