IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 25506 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M. GANPATHRAJ S/O LATE MANMAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.83/1, 3RD CROSS, SRIRAMAPURAM BENGALURU - 560 021.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. V. GUNASEELAN S/O K VISHWASAM SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B 1(A). ANTHONY GUNASEELAN Location: High Court of W/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN Karnataka AGED NOT KNOWN

1(B). EBINEZER JAYASHEELAN S/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN AGE NOT KNOWN

1(C). ANGEL PRICILLA D/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN AGED NOT KNOWN ALL RESIDING AT NO.178, GOVINDAPPA LANE, 10^TH CROSS KODIHALLI, HAL II STAGE BENGALURU - 560 008.

1(D). K. RUCKMANI W/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN AGED NOT KNOWN

1(E). G. SHEEBA RUTH D/O LATE V. GUNASEELAN AGED NOT KNOWN BOTH RESIDING AT NO.26, HAL OLD TOWNSHIP BEHIND SBI BANK, NEAR HAL BUS STOP BENGALURU - 560 017.

2. SRI. D KRISHNAKANTH S/O SRI DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.69, RATNA VILAS ROAD, K R ROAD CROSS, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. L. MANJULA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(C);

R1(D) AND R1(E) SERVED - UNREPRESENTED;

VIDE ORDER DATED 15.03.2021, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2018 ON I.A.NO.3 FILED U/S 151, CPC PASSED IN O.S.NO.25985/2017 PASSED BY THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-20) MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU VIDE ANENXURE-C AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO FILE HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT IN THE SUIT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.25985/2017 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 13.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.25985/2017 by the Court of XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

3. The suit in O.S.No.25985/2017 is filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court by respondent No.1 herein seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 11.06.2015, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff and also to declare that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 dated 22.11.2016 as void ab-initio.

4. In the said suit, defendant No.1 has been placed ex parte. Defendant No.2, who was served had not filed his written statement and therefore, the trial Court on 13.07.2018 has taken written statement as not filed on behalf of defendant No.2 and had adjourned the case for plaintiff's evidence by 11.09.2018. On 11.09.2018, the matter was adjourned at the request of plaintiff’s counsel to 13.11.2018. On 13.11.2018, application in I.A.No.3 under Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of defendant No.2 with a prayer to recall the order dated 13.07.2018 and to permit him to file written statement. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the same day without even calling for any objection from the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.2 is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has got a good defence and in the suit prayer is made even to cancel the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property. If an opportunity to file his written statement is not granted to defendant No.2, he will be put to hardship. Defendant No.1, who is the vendor of the defendant No.2 and who allegedly has executed sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff is placed ex parte before the trial Court.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the suit is filed not only