THE NEW INDIA ASS. CO LTD vs RESHMA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 203897 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

THE NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ND
2 FLOOR, KANDOOR MALL,
SV PATEL CHOWK, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102,
(NOW REPRESENTED BY,
DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,
THE NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD.,
KALABURAGI).
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. RESHMA W/O PRASHANT KALMANKAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE (NOW NIL),
R/O. H.NO.2611, KATHALE BOL, AINAPUR,
MARUTI MANDIR ROAD, TQ. BARSHI,
DIST. SOLAPUR-413001.

2. PIYUSH S/O SANJAY RUPNAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O.H.NO. 23, B RACHANA SOCIETY,
NEAR RUBY NAGAR BUS STOP JULE
SOLAPUR-413004.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SRIDEVI SHIVASHEKHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DTD.18.09.2026 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)










Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025



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
DATED 11-11-2025 PASSED IN
INTERLOCATORY APPLICATION NO.I BY
THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT AT KALABURAGI IN MVC
NO.790/2025 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.

C) PASS ANY SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION
DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

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

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025


ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Interlocutory
Application No.I by the learned I Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and MACT at Kalaburagi (for short, ‘the
Tribunal’) in MVC No.790 of 2025 vide Annexure-C,
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
seeking permission to file written statement.

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

3. The respondent No.1-claimant No.1 filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 seeking for compensation on the account of the
injuries sustained by her 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 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025



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.

5. Respondent No.1—claimant 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 ’).

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025



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 respondent No.1.

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.

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.2,000/-.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025



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 the
injuries sustained by her. 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
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.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025


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
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

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025



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
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.

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).

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025



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:
ORDER

(I) The writ petition is allowed ;

(II) The impugned order dated
11.11.2025 passed on
Interlocutory Application No.I
MVC No.790 of 2025 by the
learned I Addl. Senior Civil

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10325
WP No. 203897 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030156602025


Judge and MACT at Kalaburagi in
vide Annexure-C is set aside .

(III) I.A. No.1 is allowed and the
written statement filed by the
petitioner is taken on record,
subject to payment of cost of
Rs.2,000/- payable by the
petitioner to respondent No.1,
on the next date of hearing
before the Trial Court.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE



RK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 55
Ct:pk