THE MANAGER vs ASIF ALI

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11341
WP No. 203951 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030160802025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.203951 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER CHOLA MS GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
BLOCK NO.VIII NEAR SVP CHOWK,
ASIAN PLAZA, KALABURAGI – 585101,
(NOW REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE).

…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ASIF ALI S/O ABDUL RAHEEM,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. FIRDOUS NAGAR,
KALABURAGI- 585 101.

2. SYEDA RABIYA BEGUM W/O SYED ASIF,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TVS
RADION BEARING NO.KA-32/ZD-8691,
R/O. H.NO.5-993-11A. RING ROAD,
NEAR MAHBOOB SUBHANI CHILLA
MAHBOOB NAGAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI- 585 104.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. CHANDRAKALA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD. 14.10.2026)










Digitally signed by
B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11341
WP No. 203951 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030160802025


THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04-
11-2025 PASSED INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.I BY THE
IST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI IN
MVC NO.10/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE SAME, DIRECTING THE TRIBUNAL TO PERMIT THE
PETITIONER TO FILE WRITTEN STATEMENT TO CLAIM
PETITION. B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION
AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. C) PASS ANY SUCH ORDER OR
DIRECTION DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.


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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the
order dated 04.11.2025 passed on I. A. No.1 in MVC
No.10 of 2025 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi (for
short, ‘ the Tribunal ’).

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are
as follows:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11341
WP No. 203951 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030160802025



3. Respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation on account of injuries sustained in the
road traffic accident. The petitioner did not file a
written statement within time, as such, the Tribunal
has taken the written statement as not filed.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.
No.1 seeking permission to file a written statement.
In support of the application, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner before the Tribunal filed
a memorandum of facts stating that he could not file
the written statement on behalf of the petitioner as
the matter was under investigation by the insurance
company for collection of documents and the
insurance company has sent the written statement
after the limitation period was over. Hence, non-
filing of written statement within time is not
intentional.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11341
WP No. 203951 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030160802025



5. Respondents submitted no objection to allow the
application. However, the Tribunal rejected the
application in view of the amendment to Order VIII
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for
short, ‘ the CPC ’).

6. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order
passed on I.A. No.1, has filed this writ petition.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Constitutional validity of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC
was challenged in W.P. No.9372 of 2026 (disposed of
on 28.07.2026) and a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has read down the said amendment i.e., Order
VIII Rule 1 of CPC and hence, in view of the same,
the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not filing
a counter well within time. Hence, on these grounds,
she prays to allow the writ petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11341
WP No. 203951 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030160802025



9. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 submits no objection to allow the application
and permit the petitioner to file a written statement
subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.

10. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.

11. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation on account of
injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The
petitioner filed an application in I.A. No.1 seeking
permission to file a written statement.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a
memorandum of facts stating that the matter was
under the investigation for collection of documents
and the insurance company has sent the written
statement after the limitation period was over.
Hence, the written statement could not be filed in

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11341
WP No. 203951 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030160802025


time and filing of written statement belatedly is not
an intentional one.

13. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka in W.P.
No.8032 of 2026 connected with W.P. No.9372 of
2026 (disposed of on 28.07.2026), wherein the Co-
ordinate Bench has read down the third proviso
1
which was inserted to Rule 1 of Order VIII of CPC .

1

(i) The writ petitions are allowed in part.
(ii) The third proviso inserted to Order V Rule 1, third proviso inserted to
Rule 1 of Order VIII and proviso to Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code
of Civil Procedure by Section 4 of the Karnataka Amendment Act,
2024 is read down in the manner indicated in paragraphs 131, 132,
157 and 158 of this judgment.
(iii) Therefore the constitutional challenge to Section 4 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 is not accepted.
(iv) The expressions "the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written
statement" and "the Court shall not allow the written statement to be
taken on record" shall not be construed as completely excluding the
judicial discretion of the Civil Court in exceptionally rare cases where
refusal would result in grave miscarriage of justice.
(v) It is declared that Section 158-A of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 shall be construed harmoniously
with the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure and shall not be
interpreted as overriding or abrogating the statutory rule-making
powers of the High Court preserved under Sections 122 to 127 of the
Code, the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 225
and 227 of the Constitution, or the binding law declared by the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11341
WP No. 203951 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030160802025



14. It is held that the third proviso inserted to Rule 1 of
Order VIII and proviso to Rule 10 of Order VIII of
Code of Civil Procedure by Section 4 of the Karnataka
Amendment Act, 2024 is read down in the manner
indicated in paragraphs 131, 132, 157 and 158 of the
judgment and the constitutional challenge to Section
4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka
Amendment) Act, 2024 is not accepted and also held
that the jurisdiction preserved by the judgment to
receive a written statement beyond the prescribed
period shall be exercised by all the Civil Courts in the

Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141. To the aforesaid extent,
Section 158-A stands read down.
(vi) The jurisdiction preserved by this judgment to receive a written
statement beyond the prescribed period shall be exercised by all Civil
Courts in the State only in strict adherence to the principles,
limitations and illustrative guidelines contained in paragraph 162 of
this judgment, and only upon recording reasons demonstrating the
existence of exceptional and compelling circumstances.
(vii) It is further declared that the provisions introduced by Section 4 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 shall
operate prospectively and shall apply only to suits instituted on or
after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. Suits
instituted prior thereto shall continue to be governed by the
unamended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, in terms of the
law declared by this Court in Smt. T.Gayathri and Another v. Smt.

Prabhajit Dhariwal (W.P. No.8090 of 2026).

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11341
WP No. 203951 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030160802025


State only in strict adherence to the principles,
limitations and illustrative guidelines contained in
paragraph 162 of the judgment, and only recording
the reasons and demonstrating the existence of an
exceptional and compelling circumstances.

15. In view of the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Basavaraj S. v. State of
Karnataka ( supra ), and as the petitioner has shown
sufficient cause for not filing the written statement
within time, the Tribunal has committed an error in
rejecting the application.

16. As the petitioner has assigned the reason for not
filing the written statement within time, the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary
and erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following:

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11341
WP No. 203951 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030160802025


ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed ;

(ii) The impugned order dated
04.11.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in
MVC No.10 of 2025 by the First
Additional Senior Civil Judge and
MACT, Kalaburagi is set aside ;

(iii) Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is allowed ,
subject to payment of cost of
Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner-
insurance company to respondent
No.1-claimant before the Tribunal
by the next date of hearing;

(iv) The written statement is taken on
record.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE



VNR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
Ct:pk