Courts may accept belated written statements in exceptional cases despite Karnataka’s 120-day CPC deadline.

Respondents 2–5 instituted a partition suit, O.S. No. 349 of 2022.

The petitioners, defendants 1–3, sought permission by I.A. No. 5 to file their written statement beyond time.

The Trial Court rejected the application on 21 November 2025, relying on the amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC introduced by the Karnataka amendment.

They explained that they could not file the written statement earlier because documents relevant to the dispute, which they said related to the Nizam of Hyderabad, were unavailable.

Respondents 2–5 had no objection to allowing the application subject to costs.

Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioners’ application to file a written statement beyond time by relying on the Karnataka amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

Whether the petitioners had shown sufficient grounds for the written statement to be received beyond the prescribed period.

The Karnataka Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 inserted a proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC providing for a 120-day limit and stating that the defendant would forfeit the right to file a written statement thereafter.

In Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 8032 of 2026 connected with W.P. No. 9372 of 2026, decided on 28 July 2026, a coordinate Bench read down the relevant provisions: the bar on receiving a written statement does not eliminate judicial discretion in exceptionally rare cases where refusal would cause grave injustice, and that discretion must be exercised only in exceptional and compelling circumstances.

The Bench also held that the amendment applies prospectively, so suits instituted before its commencement remain governed by the unamended CPC.

The Court noted that the Trial Court had rejected the application by applying the amended proviso.

It accepted the petitioners’ explanation that the relevant documents were unavailable and found that the delay was not intentional.

On that basis, it held that the Trial Court had erred in refusing the application and set aside its order.

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench’s ruling on the limited discretion to receive a late written statement.

It directed that the petitioners’ written statement be taken on record upon payment of costs of ₹5,000 to respondents 2–5 before the Trial Court.