IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO. 14925 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS

S/O LATE K.B. RAMACHANDRARAJ URS

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT LEELA VIHAR 22/1

GOKULAM ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPUARM

MYSURU - 570 012.

ALSO AT EMBASSY WOODS

APARTMENT NO.123, 6/A CUNNIGHAM

ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SAMEER SHARMA, ADV.)

AND:

PRAMODA DEVI WADIYAR

W/O LATE SRIKANTADATTANARASIMHARAJA

WADIYAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

R/AT THE MYSORE PALACE

MYSORE - 570 001.

Digitally signed by …RESPONDENT

NANDINI M S

Location: HIGH COURT (BY SRI RAJENDRA S, ADV.)

OF KARNATAKA

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 06.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE MAYOHALL BENGALURU (CCH-74) ON IAS NO.

8 AND 9 (ANNX-D) AND IMPOSE COSTS.

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

1. The plaintiff 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 06.04.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.VIII and IX in O.S.No.25185 of 2015 pending before the Court of LXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.25185 of

2015 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru seeking the relief of partition, declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. Defendant no.2 had filed I.A.Nos.VIII and IX in the said suit along with written statement with a prayer to reopen the stage of the case and to condone the delay caused in filing her written statement and permit to place her written statement on record. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed the said applications subject to payment of cost.

Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the averments made in the petition submits that the Trial Court was not justified in condoning the delay of nearly six years caused in filing the written statement on behalf of defendant no.2. He submits that the applications were not even supported by affidavit of the party. The order sheet of the trial Court would go to show that the learned advocate who was appearing on behalf of defendant no.2 was participating in the court proceedings. There is no material produced before the trial Court in support of contention that learned advocate for defendant no.2 was suffering from illness which had prevented him from filing written statement on behalf of defendant no.2. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ATCOM TECHNOLOGIES LTD., V. Y.A. CHUNAWALA & CO., - (2018) 6 SCC 639 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. K NEELAMMA V. SRI R JAYANNA - W.P.NO.10621 OF 2020 DTD. 04.08.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent / defendant no.2 submits that it was not disputed before the trial Court that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of defendant no.2 was suffering from illness as stated in his affidavit. He submits that the order impugned is a conditional order and acceptance of written statement was subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff has accepted the cost paid by defendant no.2 and thereafter, the written statement has been accepted by the trial Court. Therefore, the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the order impugned. He submits that suit schedule properties are very valuable properties and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in accepting the written statement.

6. At this stage, learne