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 mandatory.

CAV ORDER

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 26.03.2021 on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.65/2017, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Gudibande (‘the Trial Court’ for short).

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants No.1 & 2 before the Trial Court, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondent No.2 herein is the defendant No.3 before the Trial Court.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1- Smt. Eswaramma herein for judgment and decree of partition and allotment of the alleged 1/3^rd share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties against the defendants/petitioners herein and also the State Bank of India.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The plaintiff filed suit seeking partition and allotment of her alleged share in the suit schedule properties. Upon service of summons, the petitioners as well as the second respondent entered appearance. However, as the written statement was not filed within the stipulated time, the Trial Court, by order dated 08.06.2017, recorded that the written statement stood not filed and posted the matter for plaintiff’s evidence. Thereafter, on 29.08.2017, the Trial Court opined that the suit as against the defendant No.3 was not maintainable and accordingly fixed the matter for hearing on 13.09.2017. From 13.09.2017 till 25.10.2018, across 13 hearing dates, no further progress was recorded and no order was passed on the maintainability issue.

5. At the behest of the plaintiff, the case was advanced from 25.10.2018 to 01.10.2018, on which date the plaintiff filed written arguments on maintainability. The matter was thereafter listed on 12.10.2018, 23.11.2018 and 23.01.2019 for hearing the defendants’ side. On 23.01.2019, the suit was transferred to the Itinerary Court of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Gudibande. As the plaintiff failed to appear, Court notice was ordered. The Trial Court, however, did not decide the issue of maintainability and instead advanced the matter from 09.08.2019 to 02.08.2019 for consideration of I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff. By order dated 31.08.2019, I.A.No.2 was allowed directing notice to the third defendant to furnish the account number in which Rs.9,99,995/- had been deposited by KSRTC as arrears of death benefits to Late A. Gangadhri. Thereafter, in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, sittings of the Itinerary Court remained suspended from 21.03.2020 till 04.12.2020.

6. Upon resumption, Court notice was once again issued to the plaintiff, and after service, the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence on 22.01.2021. On that date, the plaintiff sought adjournment, and the case was reposted on 20.02.2021, on which day she examined herself as PW1 and marked documents in support of her case. However, without affording the defendants an opportunity to cross-examine PW1 on the ground that the written statement had not been filed, the Trial Court recorded cross-examination as Nil and posted the case for arguments on 06.03.2021.

7. Realising the lapse, the petitioners herein/ defendants filed I.A.No.6 under Section 151 CPC seeking leave of Court to file their written statement by condoning the delay, explaining the circumstances. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. Upon hearing, the Trial Court by order dated 26.03.2021, rejected I.A.No.6.

8. The Trial Court observed that the defendants Nos.1 and 2 sought condonation of delay of 3 years and 11 months in filing their written statement, contending that the delay occurred due to difficulty