This Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiffs in OS No.12 of

2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Bantwal, D.K., allowing the IA.XXVI cost of Rs.5000/-

2.

Brief facts are that plaintiffs have filed a suit in OS

No.12 of 2017 for declaration with consequential relief of

permanent injunction against the defendants, from interfering

wiht the Management of Shri Sathya Sai Loka Seva Trust, Alike

and Muddenahalli Campus. In the said suit, defendants 1 to 4

and 6 to 9 have filed application under Section 151 of Code of

Civil Procedure along with written statement at the belated

stage. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court by

order dated 16.01.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

plaintiffs have preferred this Writ Petition.

3.

I have heard Sri Chandrakanth Ariga K., learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners, who contended that the

Trial Court has failed to considered the absence of due diligence

5

on the part of the defendants while filing the written statement

at the belated stage. He also submitted that the defendants have

filed application seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule

11 of Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter, the same was

subject matter in CRP No.8 of 2018 before this Court. In that

view of the matter, he submitted that though contesting

defendants were well aware about the proceedings, however,

they have filed the written statement at the belated stage and

said aspect of the matter was not considered by the Trial Court.

Accordingly, he sought interference of this court.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, I have carefully considered the reasons assigned in

the affidavit accompanying application filed by defendants 1 to 4

and 6 to 9 (IA.XXVII) vide Annexure-B. Having taken note of the

reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying application,

particularly at paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit, and also

taking into consideration the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION,

TN vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, I am

6

of the view that provisions contained under Order 8 Rule 1 of

Code of Civil Procedure are not mandatory in nature however,

only directory in nature. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in

allowing the application. However, I find force in the submission

made by the learned counsel for petitioner with regard to filing

of the written statement by the defendants at the belated stage,

however, the said aspect has been considered by the Trial Court

by imposing cost of Rs.5000/- Hence, I do not find any material

illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the

Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB