Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
Sri. Chennaveerappa A. M., S/o. late mahadevappa, - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jayamma A. C., W/o. Late Chandrappa A. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12024 Of 2024 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 05-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under article 227 regarding trial court order. (Para 1) |
| 2. request for consideration of application i.a.no.1. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observations on service of notice. (Para 3 , 4) |
ORDER :
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
1. The plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Order dated 06.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.157/2024 by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants in O.S.No.157/2024 have already entered appearance and they have filed their written statements as well as objections to I.A.No.1 filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. He submits that therefore this writ petition may be disposed of by directing the trial Court to consider I.A.No.1 on its merits and dispose of the same within a time frame.
3. The trial Court vide the order impugned has observed that the prayer made in I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No.157/2024 could be considered after notice is served on the defendants.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now made a submission that all the defendants are served and they have already filed written statements as well as objections to I.A.No.1. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no impediment for disposing of this writ petition as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Writ petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to consider I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No.157/2024 on its merits after hearing on the parties to the suit and dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The court mandated the trial court to expedite the consideration of an interim application after confirming defendants' appearances and objections, emphasizing procedural efficiency.
The court emphasized the need for timely resolution of applications in legal proceedings, directing the Trial Court to address the pending injunction application within a specified time to uphold jus....
The court determined the impropriety of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, reiterating it does not constitute an execution petition.
The court's discretion in permitting written statements and granting adjournments should be exercised judiciously, and unnecessary adjournments should be avoided under Order 17 CPC.
Against an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, neither an appeal nor revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC lies.
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
