Courts may permit belated written statements in partition suits to ensure complete adjudication, subject to costs.

The respondents instituted a suit for partition and separate possession.

The petitioners were placed ex parte on 10 December 2024, but that order was later recalled.

The petitioners’ application for permission to file a written statement was rejected by order dated 24 March 2026; their subsequent application to recall that order was also rejected.

They challenged those orders under Article 227, contending, among other things, that an amendment to the pleadings after their appearance entitled them to file a written statement and that the 120-day period under the Karnataka Amendment Act, 2024, was not mandatory.

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to file a written statement belatedly in the partition suit

Whether the orders rejecting the application to file the written statement and the application to recall that rejection should be set aside

The Court considered the 120-day period for filing a written statement under the Karnataka Amendment Act, 2024, and the principle that the Court may extend the filing period; it referred to W.P. No. 8032/2026, dated 28 July 2026, in which that period was treated as non-mandatory.

The Court further applied the principle that prejudice to the opposing party from permitting a belated written statement may be addressed by imposing costs.

The Court considered that the suit concerned partition and that excluding the petitioners’ defence could lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

Allowing a written statement would assist both sides and support a complete adjudication of the dispute.

Although the filing was belated, the Court concluded that the resulting prejudice to the plaintiffs could be compensated by costs.

It therefore allowed the written statement application without issuing notice to the respondents, noting that notice would unnecessarily delay the suit.

It allowed I.A. No. 8, permitting the petitioners to file their written statement subject to payment of ₹15,000 in costs to the plaintiffs. I.A. No. 9 was held to be infructuous.