SRI RAMESH KUMAR vs K S SATISH KUMAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- Decided on
- 19-02-2026
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
R
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 16479 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH KUMAR
S/O K.N.SURYANARAYANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RETIRED SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE (WIRELESS),
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.5,
JUMMA MASJID ROAD, AVENUE ROAD CROSS,
BEHIND INDIAN BANK,
BANGALORE-560 002.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAHUL.S.REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.S.SATISH KUMAR
S/O K.N.SURYANARAYANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.22/A,
GRAMADEVATHA ROAD,
MAVALLI BANGALORE-560 004.
2. SMT. SHOBHA RANI
W/O LATE D.S.DWARAKANATH,
AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.67,
OPPOSITE RASHMI KALA BHAVAN,
KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
RD
BANASHANKARI 3 STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
3. SRI. RAJASHEKAR
S/O P.K.N.SURYANARAYANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
1
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.5
JUMMA MASJID ROAD,
AVENUE ROAD, CROSS
BEHIND INDIAN BANK,
BANGALORE-560 002.
4.
K.S.CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O K.N.SURYANARAYANA SETTY,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S
KUM. RUCHI
D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT NO.10-249, I FLOOR,
KAMMA STREET, MADANAPALLI-517 325,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. K.R.NAGENDRA KUMAR
S/O RAMESH KUMAR.K.S.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
ST
R/AT NO.5, 1 FLOOR,
AVENUE ROAD CROSS,
JUMMA MASJID ROAD,
CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 002.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURYA PRASAD.L., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUDHEER.D.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4;
R5-SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
COSNTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN O.S.NO.16790/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LV
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE
(CCH-56) QUASH THE ORDER DTD 12.07.2022 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.28 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 151 CPC SEEKING
PERMISSION TO FILE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN
O.S.NO.16790/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-56) VIDE
ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION.
2
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed seeking to
challenge an order dated 12.07.2022 passed on IA.No.28
filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, in O.S.No.16790/2006 by the LV Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-56) [hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned
Order, the application seeking permission to file a Written
Statement after a lapse of 4745 days delay has been
dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
2. None appears for the respondents except counsel
for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 3 (A and B), despite service.
This Court by an order dated 24.08.2022, directed a stay
of proceedings before the Trial Court. These directions
have continued as is till today. It is not disputed by the
parties that the suit was filed in the year 2006 and more
3
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
than 20 years have lapsed. In view of the fact that the suit
before the Trial Court which has been stayed by this Court
was filed in the year 2006, this Court deems it apposite to
hear and decide the matter today.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant
No.2 has contended that the petitioner/defendant No.2
had filed an application seeking to place his Written
Statement on record. Relying on this application, learned
counsel has contended that the petitioner/defendant No.2
was being represented by a counsel who was representing
other defendants as well. However, despite instructions to
that counsel, no Written Statement was filed. The learned
counsel further submits that since the petitioner/defendant
No.2 was not in the city until the year 2012, the
petitioner/defendant No.2 was not aware of what was
going on in the case. Reliance by learned counsel for the
petitioner/defendant No.2 is placed on the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sri.Kempegowda Vs.
4
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
1
Smt.Venkamma and Others , wherein in the case relied
upon, the Written Statement filed after 8 years was
allowed by the Court imposing costs. Thus, it is contended
that the Written Statement filed by petitioner/defendant
No.2 should also have been allowed to be taken on record
by the learned Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 (A and B)
submits that they are co-defendants and that they have no
objection to this petition. As stated above, none appears
for the remaining respondents despite service. The matter
has been listed on two dates before this Court 13.01.2026
as well as 03.02.2026 and on both days, an adjournment
has been sought for, or the petitioner/defendant No.2 has
not appeared.
5. The application that has been filed by the
petitioner/defendant No.2 has sets out two grounds for the
delay. Firstly, he submits that he was working in another
city and came to Bengaluru only in the year 2012.
1
W
P No.41017/2016 Order Dated 21.03.2017
5
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
Secondly, it is contended that he only had one advocate
representing respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and he was not
called for filing the Written Statement.
6. The learned Trial Court after examining the
application has found that it is not correct that the
petitioner/defendant No.2 was not aware of the progress
of the case. The learned Trial Court has referred to the
sufficient number of opportunities granted to the
petitioner/defendant No.2 to file his Written Statement. It
has further been held that the petitioner/defendant No.2
had filed an objection to an interim application filed by
defendant No.5 on 18.02.2013 and also that in the year
2015, the petitioner/defendant No.2 had also filed an
affidavit before the Court. In addition, the learned Trial
Court has held that no ground for condonation of delay
has been made out. Thus, the application has been
dismissed. Paragraph No.7 of the Impugned Order in this
behalf, is extracted below:
“7. I have gone through the entire materials on
record. Admittedly, the defendant No.1, 2, 4 and 5
engaged one counsel. Among them the defendant No.1
6
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
and 5 have filed written statement. Now this
defendant No.2 is contending that recently he
came to know that his written statement is not in
record. But on going through the order sheet, it
reveals that sufficient opportunity was given to
this defendant to file his written statement. It is not
possible to believe that he had no knowledge relating to
the progress of this case. Records reveal that on
18.02.2013 had had filed objection to an interim
application filed by the defendant No.5. Further it
reveals that in the year 2015 he had filed one
affidavit before the court. Such being the case, it
reveals that he had every knowledge relating to the
progress of the case. Now this application is filed
with a delay of 4745 days. No ground is made out
to condone the delay. The contention of the plaintiff
that this application is filed only to drag on the case is
acceptable one. Hence, the above point is answered in
the NEGATIVE, and the following order is passed.
ORDER
IA No.28 filed by the defendant No.2 under Section 151
of CPC is hereby dismissed.
The case is posted for arguments.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant
No.2 has relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench
in Sri Kempegowda’s case which has while relying upon
the judgment of Supreme Court in Kailash vs. Nanhku
2
And Others , condoned the delay in filing the Written
Statement. An examination of the judgment in the
Kempegowda’s case shows that the defendant therein
2
(2005) 4 SCC 480
7
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
has made an exceptional case and explained
circumstances which are beyond the control of the
defendant in the delay caused in filling of the Written
Statement.
8. Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC provides for a Written
Statement to be filed within 30 days, condonable and on
an application, for upto 90 days. Order V Rule 1 of the CPC
provides that the Written Statement shall be filed within
30 days from the date of summons and where the
defendant fails to file the Written Statement, he will be
allowed to file the Written Statement, within a period of 90
days from the date thereof. Thus, the Written Statement is
ordinarily required to be filed within 90 days of the date of
receipt of summons, unless the Court grants an extension
for reasons to be recorded in writing. Order VIII Rule 1 of
the CPC, as well as Order V Rule 1 of the CPC, are set out
below:
“ Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC
1. Written Statement.— The Defendant shall, within
thirty days from the date of service of summons on him,
present a written statement of his defence:
8
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written
statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall
be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be
specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days
from the date of service of summons.
Order V Rule 1 of the CPC
1. Summons .— (1) When a suit has been duly instituted,
a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear
and answer the claim and to file the written statement of
his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of
service of summons on that defendant:
Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a
defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and
admitted the plaintiff’s claim:
Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the
written statement within the said period of thirty days,
he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as
may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than
ninety days from the date of service of summons.”
8.1. In any event, in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure
3*
(Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 which has come into
force on 05.06.2025, a third proviso has been inserted to
Order V Rule 1 of CPC, which states that if the defendant
does not file his Written Statement within 120 days from
the date of receipt of the summons, his right to file the
Written Statement shall be forfeited and the Written
*
An Act introduced for the expeditious disposal of civil cases and to improve
efficiency for providing speedy justice.
9
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
Statement will not be taken on record. The third proviso
to Order V Rule 1 Sub-rule (1) of the CPC is extracted
below:
“Provided also that where the defendant fails to file
the Written Statement within the said period of
thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the Written
Statement on such other day, as may be specified by the
Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on
payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but
which shall not be later than one hundred twenty
days from the date of service of summons and on
expiry of one hundred twenty 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 on
record.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Atcom
4
Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co. , while
granting extension of time to file Written Statement has
held that the time to file Written Statement can be
extended, however, in exceptional circumstances. Delay
can be condoned by the Court but it does not mean
defendant can take as much time as he can in fling the
4
(2018) 6 SCC 639
10
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
Written Statement. It is apposite to extract the relevant
extract below:
"20. This provision has come up for interpretation before
this Court in number of cases. No doubt, the words “shall
not be later than ninety days” do not take away the
power of the court to accept written statement beyond
that time and it is also held that the nature of the
provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantive
law. At the same time, this Court has also
mandated that time can be extended only in
exceptionally hard cases. We would like to reproduce
the following discussion from Salem Advocate Bar Assn.
(2) v. Union of India [Salem Advocate Bar Assn.
(2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344] : (SCC p. 364,
para 21)
“21. … There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10
that after expiry of ninety days, further time
cannot be granted. The court has wide power to
“make such order in relation to the suit as it
thinks fit”. Clearly, therefore, the provision of
Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90
days to file written statement is directory. Having
said so, we wish to make it clear that the order
extending time to file written statement cannot
be wmade in routine. The time can be extended
only in exceptionally hard cases. While
extending time, it has to be borne in mind
that the legislature has fixed the upper
time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the
court to extend the time shall not be so
frequently and routinely exercised so as to
nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1.”
21. In such a situation, onus upon the defendant is of a
higher degree to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate a
valid reason for not filing the written statement within
thirty days. When that is a requirement, could it be a
ground to condone delay of more than 5 years
even when it is calculated from the year 2009, only
because of the reason that writ of summons was
not served till 2009?
11
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
22. We fail to persuade ourselves with this kind of
reasoning given by the High Court in condoning the
delay, thereby disregarding the provisions of Order 8
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the spirit
behind it. This reason of the High Court that delay
was condoned “by balancing the rights and
equities” is far-fetched and, in the process,
abnormal delay in filing the written statement is
condoned without addressing the relevant factor
viz. whether the respondents had furnished proper
and satisfactory explanation for such a delay. The
approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous in law
and cannot be countenanced. No doubt, the
provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 are procedural in nature and,
therefore, handmaid of justice. However, that
would not mean that the defendant has right to
take as much time as he wants in filing the written
statement, without giving convincing and cogent
reasons for delay and the High Court has to condone it
mechanically.
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. An examination of the application filed shows that
petitioner/defendant No.2 has failed to make out any
grounds for condonation of delay in filing the Written
Statement. The only reason as set forth in the
application/affidavit filed is that the petitioner/defendant
No.2 was not in the city till 2012. Thereafter the counsel
left practice and the present counsel found no Written
Statement available in the case file. No details have been
set out as to when the new counsel took over or why
I.A.No.28 for condonation of delay was filed as late as on
12
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
21.06.2019. The relevant extract of the Affidavit is set out
below:
“AFFIDAVIT
xxx xxx xxx
2. I submit that I was working in Kolar and I came
to Bengaluru only in the year 2012 and there was
sole advocate for myself, defendant No.1, 4 and 5.
And as I was not in station, I was not called for
filing the written statement. And the said counsel
joined to a company and doing chamber practice
and not coming to the court. Then I took no
objection from him and approached the present
counsel and narrated all the facts before her. Then
it is found that my written statement is not in
record.
3. I submit that I was the only earning member in the
family and I was looking after the family and spent a
huge amount for the family. This fact is not brought to
the knowledge of this Hon'ble Court either by the
defendant No.1 or other plaintiff or defendants.
xxx xxx xxx
5. The non-filing of written statement in time is
only due to the above case bonafide reason and not
intentional.
6. I have got a very good defence on merits and if this
application is not allowed, I would be put to great
hardship and inconvenience. On the other hand if this
application is allowed, no harm or prejudice would be
caused to the other side.
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. In the present case, it is not disputed that the suit
was filed in the year 2006. It is also not disputed that the
13
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
petitioner/defendant No.2 was served in the year 2006
itself and filed his Vakalathnama on 29.11.2006. The order
sheets of the Trial Court have been placed before this
Court, which reflects that the petitioner/defendant No.2
was served sometime in the year 2007. It also reflects
that three suits were filed for injunction, inter-se , the
family members of the parties and that these three suits
were clubbed together by the Court on 03.09.2010. The
Written Statement was filed by the defendant No.1 along
with an application only on 11.02.2011 subject to payment
of Rs.2,000/- as costs before the Trial Court.
Subsequently, petitioner/defendant No.2 although was
present before the Court, took multiple dates for filing of
the Written Statement. The objections were filed in the
year 2015. Issues were framed by the Trial Court in the
matter and thereafter, the matter was proceeded for
evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant
No.2 submits that the evidence has already been
concluded.
14
NC: 2026:KHC:10330
WP No. 16479 of 2022
HC-KAR
12. However, and as stated above, there is a 4745 days
delay in filing the Written Statement. As has been
discussed above, no sufficient cause or cogent reasons
have been shown by the petitioner/defendant No.2 qua
the delay.
13. The petition is accordingly dismissed . All pending
applications stand closed.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNTAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
NR /YN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
15