IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 12037 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

DEVARAJ SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1. DEVAMMA W/O LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

2. MOHAN D S/O LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

3. JAYAMMA D S/O LATE DEVARAJU

4. RAGHU S/O LATE DEVARAJU PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUCCHENAKOPPALU KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573211 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SANNASWAMY S/O LATE KENGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O HUCCHENAKOPPALU KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573211

2. RAMA S/O LATE KENGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O HUCCHENAKOPPALU KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573211 …RESPONDENTS (R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

NOTICE TO R2-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD:18.07.2024)

***

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.14.03.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA IN O.S.NO. 117/2018 ON I.A.NO.V, PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 14.03.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Holenarasipura, on I.A.No.V in O.S.No.117/2018 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, an application, I.A.No.V filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’] filed by the original petitioner/defendant [to extend the time to file the Written Statement], has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court, giving a finding that the application has been filed belatedly and at the frog end [‘sic’ fag end] of the Trial.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that while the petitioner/defendant had been served on 10.05.2018, he did not file his Written Statement till 04.01.2019 and along with his Written Statement, he filed an application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant further submits that although a wrong provision was invoked, the application was filed seeking extension of time to file the Written Statement. He submits that the delay in filing the Written Statement only occurred in view of the fact that the relevant documents could not be obtained in time. He further submits that the delay was not intentional and would not cause any prejudice, since the suit was only filed on 17.04.2018 and it was within the first few months of the filing of the suit that this application was filed.

3. None appears for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, despite service. Given the pendency of the matter for almost five years, and the fact that the stay of the Trial Court proceedings was granted by this Court on 08.07.2021 which has continued as is since then, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today.

4. The record reflects that a suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on 17.04.2018 against the original petitioner/defendant. It is stated in the suit that the parties are the children of one Kengaiah and Sanna Devamma and that the suit has been filed for partition of the undivided Joint Family Properties, in which, all the parties have an equal share.

5. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant in the Written Statement that the shares of the parties are not equal. However, the Written Statement was not taken on record by the learned Trial Court, since it was filed after the expiry of a period of 120 days.

6. The learned Trial Court has in the Impugned Order relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, to hold that the provisions of Order VIII