IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO.18525/2021(GM/CPC)

BETWEEN :

SRI K C PRABHAKAR REDDY

S/O CHOKAPPA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

R/A 727, 3-C, 8^TH MAIN

1ST BLOCK, H R B R LAYOUT

KALIAN NAGAR

BENGALURU - 560 043

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN H.P., ADVOCATE)

AND :

1 .

SRI. T. SRINIVAS REDDY

S/O LATE R THIMMAREDDY

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

2 .

SRI T. NANDA GOPAL

S/O LATE R THIMMAREDDY

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

3 .

SRI T. RAJESH

S/O LATE R THIMMAREDDY

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT 34

2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN

R K KUVEMPU ROAD

B-CHANNASANDRA

2

KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI

BENGALURU EAST-560 036

4 .

SMT. CHITRA ANNASWAMY

W/O T V ANNASWAMY

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR

4(A) SRI A M RAMAMURTHY

S/O LATE CHITRA ANNASWAMY

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

R/A NO.1, ARCOT HOUSE

KINGSTON STREET, RICHMOND TOWN

BENGALURU - 560 025

5 .

SMT. R MALA

D/O LATE RAJAGOPALAN

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

R/A NO.63, 1^ST FLOOR

TYAGARAJANAGAR

BENGALURU - 560 023

6 .

SRI V NAGARAJ

S/O LATE T A VENKATA RAO

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

R/A NO.3425, 2^ND FLOOR

2^ND STAGE, 10^TH MAIN

KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT

BENGALURU - 560 025

7 .

SRI T N VENUGOPAL REDDY

S/O SRI T. V. NARASI REDDY

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

R/A CHIKKA TAKAHALLI VILLAGE

SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK

CHIKKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 105

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N. BAYYA REDDY, ADVOCATE AND

SRI. N. NAGENDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)

3

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2021 IN O.S.NO.329/2017

PASSED BY THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, (CCH 19) REJECTING THE I.A.NO.8 AND 9 FILED

U/S 151 OF THE CPC 1908 AND I.A.NO.10 FILED UNDER

ORDER VIII RULE 1-A R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND

ALLOW THE SAME AND ETC.

THIS

WRIT

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner, who is the fourth defendant in

O.S.No.329/2017 on the file of the City Civil and

Sessions Judge, CCH-19 Bengaluru (for short, the 'civil

Court'), has filed this petition impugning the civil

Court's order dated 3.9.2021. The civil Court by this

order has rejected the petitioner's applications [IA

Nos.8, 9 and 10]. The petitioner has filed these

applications for condonation of delay in filing the

written statement (IA.10), for permission to file the

written statement (IA.9) and to recall the order dated

24.6.2017 (IA.8).

4

The petitioner does not dispute that he was served

with the suit summons and he had to file the written

statement within the month of April 2017, but he

contends that he handed over all the papers to his

previous counsel on record in the year 2019. However,

the learned counsel could not assist him in filing the

written statement, and she later expressed her inability

to continue as she was in the family way twice and

because of the Covid-19 restrictions. The petitioner

asserts that he was therefore constrained to engage

another counsel and file the written statement along

with the applications as aforesaid.

The reasons assigned by the petitioner should be

considered in the light of the fact that the suit in O.S.

No. 329/2017 is for declaration of title to an immovable

property impugning certain registered transactions, and

this Court must opine that the civil Court has not thus

considered all the circumstances. This Court must also

5

observe that the reasons offered by the petitioner should

be considered in the light of the settled law that the

provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are held to be

directory and not mandatory. But, the petitioner, who

is hereby permitted to file written statement, must be

called upon to pay costs to offset any difficulty to the

plaintiffs. Hence the following

ORDER

The petition is allowed and the impugned order

da