1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

WRIT PETITION No.204899/2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SATYABHAMA

W/O BALAJI BIRADAR

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

OCC: HOUSEHOLD

R/O. POOJA COLONY, KALABURAGI.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S.S.SARADAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

KUMARI PREETI

D/O VITTAL RAO JALDE

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

OCC: NOT KNOWN

R/O C/O VITTAL RAO JALDE ADVOCATE

H.NO.1-872, "PREETI",

VENKATESH NAGAR KALABURAGI - 585 102.

2.

THE CITY CORPORATION, KALABURAGI

THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER - 585 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1,

SRI P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR R2)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.11 BY II-ADDL.

CIVIL JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN O.S.NO.556 OF 2015

DATED 17.10.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND TO ISSUE

ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST

OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard Sri S.S.Saradagi, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel for

respondent No.1.

2.

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking

to issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated

17.10.2019, by the II-Addl. Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, on

I.A.No.11

in

O.S.No.556/2015,

vide

Annexure-A,

wherein the application seeking permission to file

written statement filed by the petitioner, who was

3

defendant No.1 before the Trial Court came to be

rejected.

3.

The petitioner contended that respondent

No.1 has filed a suit for perpetual injunction. The Court

has granted ex parte temporary injunction. Accordingly,

the petitioner received suit summons and notice of

I.A.No.11. Then the petitioner appeared through her

Advocate one Sri Apparao Sugur and filed objections to

the said interim application filed under Order 39 Rule 1

of CPC on 17.12.2015. Thereafter, the case was posted

for haring on I.A.No.1. Till today the said counsel Sri

Apparao Sugur was suffering from various health

ailments and was unable to instruct the petitioner to file

written statement. This petitioner is uneducated person

and she could not instruct her counsel to file her

written statement within time.

4.

Since the case was pending for hearing on

I.A.No.1, the written statement was not filed. Thereafter,

4

the petitioner engaged new counsel on 07.08.2018 and

then said counsel found that written statement is not

on record and instructed petitioner to file written

statement.

Accordingly,

petitioner

filed

written

statement

along

with

application.

But

the

said

application was rejected by order dated 17.10.2019.

5.

It is contended by the petitioner that the said

previous counsel Sri Apparao Sugur was suffering from

various health ailments and as such he could not

instruct this petitioner to file written statement,

therefore, petitioner could not file her written statement.

The said suit is still at preliminary stage of hearing on

I.A.No.1 only. The said suit involves valuable rights in

immovable properties of the petitioner. If the impugned

order is not set aside, petitioner will suffer irreparable

loss and injury.

6.

It is further contended that her application

seeking permission to file written statement was decided

5

after one year two months from the date of application.

Learned counsel also produced the certified copy of the

order sheet which shows that nowhere the Trial Court

has stated either any stage for filing written statement

or it is treated by the Trial Court that "written statement

not filed" and the Trial Court has not forfeited the right

of the defendant to file written statement.

7.

On the other hand, subsequently, some

amendment applications were filed and objections were