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 claims.

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 petitioner as regards non filing of written statement. However, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that neither cogent nor proper reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting application and the Trial Court has taken into account the affidavit in support of the application and opined that no reasons were assigned by the petitioner to seek condonation of delay. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to enable petitioner file better affidavit, the petitioner would do so and file application afresh in accordance with law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be set aside.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the fact that the Trial Court has rejected the instant application on the ground that valid/ sufficient grounds/cause was not made out by the petitioner- plaintiff to seek condonation of delay in filing the written statement. However, in view of the specific assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, petitioner would file better affidavit in support of the application, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his contention in condonation of delay, by adopting justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of application afresh in accordance with law.

6. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is hereby allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents-plaintiffs.

ii) The impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.1655/2006 on I.A. filed by the petitioner on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

iii) The matter is remitted back to the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru for reconsideration of application afresh in accordance with law.