Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
P. Ramanjinappa, S/O. Late Papaiah – Appellant
Versus
Muniyappa, Since Dead By His Lrs – Respondent
ORDER :
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
This petition by defendant No.9 in O.S.No.1655/2006 is directed against the impugned order dated 04.11.2025, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner – defendant No.9 seeking permission to file written statement by condoning the delay was rejected by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the aforesaid suit is filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 10- LR’s of plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The petitioner, who is a pendente lite – lis pendens purchaser of Item No.6 of the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 4 did not initially file the written statement. Subsequently, after the plaintiff got his plaint amended on 05.02.2025, the defendant filed the instant application seeking permission to file written statement came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not filed written statement due diligently within the prescribed period and no explanation was offered by the petitio
A trial court's rejection of a delay application must be supported by cogent reasoning, and courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach, granting opportunities to parties to substantiate their clai....
The law regarding the condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation, and negligence or lack of diligence renders an application for delay condonation unjustifiable.
The judgment clarifies the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC concerning the acceptance of belated written statements, emphasizing that procedural timelines are directory, not mandato....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputes should be resolved on merits rather than on technicalities, and therefore, delay in filing pleadings can be condoned to ensure tha....
The court ruled that the limitation for filing a written statement is strict and can only be extended in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit for filing a written statement under the Civil Procedure Code should be treated as directory, and the court should balance the ....
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Commercial Courts Act 2015, regarding the filing of written statements and the exten....
Question of delay could not be re-agitated by means of the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
In partition suits between elderly step-brothers, 58-day delay in written statement condoned as exceptional case warranting defendant's pleadings for fair trial, avoiding defective decrees and prolon....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
