SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 672

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
SRI.L.VENKATARAMA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
SRI.B.N SRIRAMACHANDRA – Respondent
WP 33976/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 33976 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. L. VENKATARAMA REDDY

S/O LAKSHMANA REDDY

AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS

R/A PALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,

SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,

KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 135

…PETITIONER

(BY MS. CHARISHMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. B. N. SRIRAMACHANDRA

S/O CHIKKA NARAYANAPPA

AGEA BOUT 69 YEARS

R/A NANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE

MURAGAMALLA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563 125

Digitally signed by CHANDANA

B M 2. SRI K. MUNINARAYANA Location: H igh AGE ABOUT 88 YEARS

Court of

S/O LATE RAMANNA

Karnataka

R/A MANGA SANDRA VILLAGE,

VOKKALERE HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK,

KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130

…RESPONDENTS

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER DATED 27-06-2025 ON I.A. NOS. 12 AND 13 MADE IN O.S. NO. 178/2023, PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KOLAR

(ITINERATE AT SRINIVASPUR), AS PER ANNEXURE - A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.Nos.12 and 13 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar (Itinerate at Srinivasapur) dated 27.06.2025, whereby the said applications filed by defendants Nos.1 and 2 for permission to file written statement was allowed by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondents is dispensed with.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession in relation of his alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. In the first instance, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 having not filed the written statement subsequently filed the aforesaid applications I.A.Nos.12 and 13 for permission to file the written statement, which came to be allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order as under:

“Orders on I.A.Nos. 12 & 13 filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 1 under Section 151 of CPC.

The defendant No.2 has filed I.A. No.12 seeking permission to file the written statement to contest the case.

2) The defendant No.1 has filed I.A. No.13 seeking permission to file the written statement to contest the case.

3) On the other hand plaintiff has resisted the applications by filing separate objection to IA Nos. 12 and

13.

4) I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned advocates for plaintiff and the above defendants.

5) Following points arise for my consideration.

1. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have made out sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing written statements?

2. What Order?

6) My findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following-

REASONS

7) Point No.1: The Applicant/defendant No.2 in his annexed affidavit to I.A. No.12 has stated that the plaintiff has filed the suit on false and frivolous grounds. He could not file his written statement earlier due to collection of documents from concerned authorities. Filing of his written statement is absolutely essential in order to decide real question in controversy between him and the plaintiff. If he is not permitted to file written statement he will be put to great hardship and inconvenience. Non filing of his written statement well in time was due to bonafide reasons and not intentional.

8) The plaintiff has filed objection to the said application and contented that defendant No.2 entered appearance on 28-07-2023. However, defendant No.2 has not filed written statement till 08-11-2024 i.e. for a period of 15 months. The affidavit in support of application does not disclose bonafide reasons for an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top