The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 10.12.2021, passed in O.S.No.340/2011 by the

Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, has

filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.340/2011 for

the relief of specific performance of contract. In the

said suit respondent appeared and filed written

statement. Thereafter Trial Court framed the issues.

Petitioner was examined as PW-1 and closed his side.

The case was posted for respondent's evidence.

Respondent was examined as DW-1. During the

3

course of cross-examination, DW-1 has denied the

signature on the vakalathnama and reply notice. In

view of the denial of signature, petitioner filed an

application under Order VI Rule 16 r/w Section 151 of

CPC seeking to strike out the written statement of the

defendant. The respondent has opposed the said

application. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought

time to address arguments on the said application.

The Trial Court, without adjourning the matter, has

proceeded

to

dismiss

the

application

for

non-

prosecution. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ

petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the Trial Court has committed an error in

rejecting the application for non-prosecution. He

4

further submits that though the petitioner has sought

time to address arguments, the Trial Court ought to

have granted an adjournment, instead, has proceeded

to dismiss the application for non-prosecution. He

further submits that the order passed by the Trial

Court is perverse and without application of mind.

Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ

petition.

5.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent fairly concedes that a direction may be

issued to the Trial Court to reconsider the application

filed by the petitioner.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has

filed a suit for specific performance of contract. In the

said suit respondent has filed written statement.

5

Thereafter petitioner was examined and closed his

side. During the cross-examination of the respondent,

the

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner

has

confronted

the

vakalathnama

executed

by

the

respondent. The respondent has denied his signature

on the vakalathnama and also the signature appearing

in the reply notice. In view of the denial of the

signature by respondent on vakalathnama and reply

notice, petitioner filed an application under Order VI

Rule 16 r/w Section 151 CPC to strike out the written

statement filed by the respondent. The case was

listed on 10.12.2021. The counsel appearing for the

petitioner sought time to address arguments on the

said application. The Trial Court, without considering

the request made by counsel for the petitioner, has

dismissed the application for non-prosecution. The

Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the

application for non-prosecution.

6

8. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

The

impugned

order

dated

10.12.2021, passed in O.S.No.340/2011 by

the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli,

is set aside.

The

Trial

Court

is

directed

to

reconsider the application filed by the

petitioner after hearing the parties and

pass appropriate orders, in accordance with

law.

SD/-

JUDGE

RD