Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10774
WP No. 5374 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
WRIT PETITION NO. 5374 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
KUMARA
S/O LATE DEVE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
249, KAMANAKERE HUNDI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK – 570 008
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNEEL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SURENDRA K
S/O LATE KANTHARAJ
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO.4237, 2 PHASE,
TH
VIJAYANAGARA 4 STAGE,
NEAR KBL ENCLAVE
MADDUR TALUK – 570 032
…RESPONDENT
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 12.01.2026 ON IA NO.VII PASSED IN
OS NO.1293/2025 BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
MYSORE, AT ANNX-C AND IN TURN ALLOW THE APPLICATION i.e.,
I.A NO.7 AT ANNX-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
Digitally
signed by
KAVYA G
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10774
WP No. 5374 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following
relief:
“Issue a Writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or
direction of similar nature to quash/set aside the Order
dated:12/01/2026 on I.A.No.VII passed in
O.S.No.1293/2025 before the Prl.Civil judge & JMFC At
Mysore, at Annexure-‘C’ and in turn allow the application
i.e., IA No.7 at Annexure-‘B’.”
3. The order under challenge is the one passed on
I.A No.VII moved by the petitioner who is the defendant in a
suit for declaration and injunction. By means of the aforesaid
I.A, inherent powers of the Court are sought to be invoked to
enable filing of a written statement that was admittedly filed
more than 120 days after the date of service of summons. The
learned VIII Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mysuru has in
the impugned order of 12.01.2026 relied upon the 2025
Karnataka Amendment in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, which inserts
a third proviso in the aforesaid Rule which mandates that after
the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons,
the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement
and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10774
WP No. 5374 of 2026
HC-KAR
on record. The learned trial Judge has done just that, that is to
say he has relied upon the aforesaid provision to reject the I.A.
In this view of the matter, the Court finds no error in the
impugned order that would warrant its setting aside.
4. Be that as it may, the right of the petitioner to
cross-examine witnesses and to make his arguments is not
taken away as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
1
Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo , subject to certain
safeguards.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, interference in the
aforesaid impugned order is not permissible. The petition is
therefore dismissed.
6. The Registry of this Court is directed to
communicate this order to the concerned Trial Courts within
fifteen days from today so that it can be placed on the record.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
KG
1
( 1988) 4 SCC 619
NC: 2026:KHC:10774
WP No. 5374 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
WRIT PETITION NO. 5374 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
KUMARA
S/O LATE DEVE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
249, KAMANAKERE HUNDI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK – 570 008
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNEEL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SURENDRA K
S/O LATE KANTHARAJ
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO.4237, 2 PHASE,
TH
VIJAYANAGARA 4 STAGE,
NEAR KBL ENCLAVE
MADDUR TALUK – 570 032
…RESPONDENT
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 12.01.2026 ON IA NO.VII PASSED IN
OS NO.1293/2025 BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
MYSORE, AT ANNX-C AND IN TURN ALLOW THE APPLICATION i.e.,
I.A NO.7 AT ANNX-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
Digitally
signed by
KAVYA G
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10774
WP No. 5374 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following
relief:
“Issue a Writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or
direction of similar nature to quash/set aside the Order
dated:12/01/2026 on I.A.No.VII passed in
O.S.No.1293/2025 before the Prl.Civil judge & JMFC At
Mysore, at Annexure-‘C’ and in turn allow the application
i.e., IA No.7 at Annexure-‘B’.”
3. The order under challenge is the one passed on
I.A No.VII moved by the petitioner who is the defendant in a
suit for declaration and injunction. By means of the aforesaid
I.A, inherent powers of the Court are sought to be invoked to
enable filing of a written statement that was admittedly filed
more than 120 days after the date of service of summons. The
learned VIII Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mysuru has in
the impugned order of 12.01.2026 relied upon the 2025
Karnataka Amendment in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, which inserts
a third proviso in the aforesaid Rule which mandates that after
the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons,
the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement
and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10774
WP No. 5374 of 2026
HC-KAR
on record. The learned trial Judge has done just that, that is to
say he has relied upon the aforesaid provision to reject the I.A.
In this view of the matter, the Court finds no error in the
impugned order that would warrant its setting aside.
4. Be that as it may, the right of the petitioner to
cross-examine witnesses and to make his arguments is not
taken away as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
1
Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo , subject to certain
safeguards.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, interference in the
aforesaid impugned order is not permissible. The petition is
therefore dismissed.
6. The Registry of this Court is directed to
communicate this order to the concerned Trial Courts within
fifteen days from today so that it can be placed on the record.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
KG
1
( 1988) 4 SCC 619