CHOLA MS GIC LTD vs MIRA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10761
WP No. 200729 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030021062026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 200729 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
CHOLA MS GIC LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
OPP. KBN HOSPITAL, BESIDE KSRTC,
GUEST HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI,
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE).
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MIRA W/O SUNIL ALHAT,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SUNIL S/O NARAYAN ALHAT,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
BOTH R/O KOYALI TARF CHAKAN,
KOYALI, PUNE- 410501.
3. DATTA S/O KISHAN DANGE,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
R/O JEWALI, TQ. AND DIST. LATUR- 413531.
…RESPONDENTS
(V/O DTD.17.02.2026 NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH)
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10761
WP No. 200729 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030021062026
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE
ORDER DTD. 04.02.2026 PASSED IN INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION NO.I BY THE 1ST. ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT AT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO. 1564/2025 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 CIRCUMSTANCE 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 04.02.2026 passed on I.A. No.1 in MVC
No.1564 of 2025 by the First Additional Senior Civil
Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kalaburagi (for short, ‘ the Tribunal ’).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10761
WP No. 200729 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030021062026
3. The respondents-claimants filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
seeking for compensation on the account of death of
deceased in a 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:10761
WP No. 200729 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030021062026
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 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,
he prays to allow the writ petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10761
WP No. 200729 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030021062026
9. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 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 the respondents filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation on account of
death of their son. 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:10761
WP No. 200729 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030021062026
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:10761
WP No. 200729 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030021062026
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:10761
WP No. 200729 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030021062026
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 reasons 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:10761
WP No. 200729 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030021062026
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed ;
(ii) The impugned order dated
04.02.2026 passed on I.A. No.1 in
MVC No.1564 of 2025 by the First
Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kalaburagi is set aside ;
(iii) Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is allowed ;
(iv) The written statement is taken on
record.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24
Ct:pk