1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. MANOHAR

WRIT PETITION No.59642/2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI G. SHIVALINGAIAH, S/O.LATE B.R.GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT. NO.12/E, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, , FIRST PHASE, -560 085. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH.K, ADV.)

AND:

1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT AMANIKERE DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.

2. B.U.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

3. SMT. B.U.PRAMILA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

4. SMT. LEELAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

2

5. SMT. B.U.SUDHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

6. KUM. B.U.LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

7. B.U.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

RESPONDENT Nos.2 TO 7 ARE THE CHILDREN OF SRI UGRAPPA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.60, BYATARAYANAPURA, SHAKARA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 092.

8. KUM. B.S.RAMA DEVI, D/O SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

9. KUM. UMA DEVI, D/O SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

10. B.S.MANJUNATHA, S/O SHAMANNA, AGED MAJOR.

11. B.M.MURALI, S/O SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

12. B.M.PRATAP, S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

RESPONDENTS No.8 TO 12 ARE R/AT NO.120, BYTARAYANAPURA, SHAKARA NAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 092.

3

13. SMT. B.R.ASHA, D/O RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

14. B.R.LATHA, D/O RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

15. KUM. B.R.SHEELA, D/O RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

16. B.R.NANDISHA, S/O OF RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

RESPONDENT Nos. 13 TO 16 ARE RESIDING NEAR VINAYAKA SCHOOL, BYATARAYANAPURA, SAHAKARANAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 092.

THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 16 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER SRI G.VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O GARUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT. MUNUGURAPPA LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 092.

17. SRI UGRAPPA, S/O. LATE. JALARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.149, BYATARAYANAPURA, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-64.

4

18. SRI SHAMANNA, S/O LATE JALARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R.AT NO.60, BYATARAYANAPURA, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-64.

19. SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA, S/O LATE JALARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BYATARAYANAPURA, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-64.

20. SRI RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE JALARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NEAR VINAYAKA SCHOOL, AT NO.60, BYATARAYANAPURA, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-64.

21. THE KARNATAKA STATE , JUDICIAL DEPT. EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGLAORE - 560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

22. V.V.TODURKAR, S/O VASUDEV, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, NO.35, 6 TH TEMPLE ROAD, 15 TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003, NO.996, 11 TH MAIN , JUDICIAL LAYOUT, G.K.V.K. POST, BANGALORE – 560 064.

5

23. MUNIYAPPA, S/O SIDDARANGANA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, NO.176, 13 TH B MAIN ROAD, GOKUL EXTENSION, YESWATHPURA, BANGALORE – 560 054.

24. N.BASAVARAJU, S/O NANJUNDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NO.27/8, 20 TH MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI, VIJAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.

25. K.N.NARAYANAPPA NAIK, S/O LATE K.NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, NO.7, 6 TH CORSS, 2 ND PHASE, MANJUNATH NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010.

26. B.S.REDDY, S/O SIDRAMAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.307, ‘A’ BLOCK, GOPALAN RESIDENCY, TELECOM LAYOUT, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 023.

27. SMT. M.NANDINI, W/O CHIKKAPEDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NO.58, 6 TH MAIN, 7 TH CROSS, VENKATAPPA LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560094.

28. K.GOVINDRAJAN, S/O RAJAGOPALA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

6

NO.U. 15, GANESHA BLOCK, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560020.

29. SMT. B.R.SHANTHAMMA, W/O RAMACHANDRAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.6, 2 ND CROSS, MARAPPA GARDEN, J.C.N NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 006.

30. P.NARAYANAPPA, S/O PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.238/8, PWD QUARTERS YELAHANKA UPANAGAR, BANGALORE-560064.

31. P.SUNDAR, S/O SIDDARANGAIAH, MAJOR, NO.151, 1ST STAGE ANAND NAGAR, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560024.

32. S.SUMITRA, W/O VASUDEV AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, NO.31, 5 TH CROSS, 8TH A MAIN, J BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560034.

33. K.S.RUKMINI, W/O NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.1G, 13 TH STREET, JOGUPALAY, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008.

7

34. G.VARADARAJU, S/O LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, NO.122/1, 4 TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, 4 TH BLOCK, THYAGARAJ NAGAR, BANGALORE-560028.

35. D’SOUZA ROBINSON, S/O R.A.D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.972, 1 ST CROSS, BSK IIIRD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, 3 RD PHASE, BANGALORE-560085.

36. RAGHAVENDRA UPADHYA, S/O VASUDEV UPADHYA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.1065, 11 TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, ALLALASANDRA, GKVK POST, BANGALORE-560064.

37. V.SUNDAR RAO, S/O N.VISHWANATH RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.888, OPP J.J.CHURCH EJIPURA, VIVEK NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560047.

38. K.NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O LATE K.VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-B, CONVENTRY APARTMENT, NO.28, CONVENT ROAD, RICHMOND CROSS, BANGALORE-560025.

39. SMT B.G.JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O RANGANATH,

8

R/AT NO.1067, 11 TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST, BANGALORE-560064.

40. SRI SHIVAPPA.Y.JAYOTHRANNANAVAR, MAJOR, NO.255/1, GOVT. PWD QUARTERS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE – 64.

41. SRI P.SURYANARAYANA, ATTENDER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

42. SRI G.C.GANGIA, WORKING AS SDA IN CMM COURT, BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.N.SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR R1-16 NOTICE TO R17-42 IS DISPENSED V/O DT:19.12.2014)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF , WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.4358/2002 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VTH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5.12.2014 VIDE ANN-E PASSED ON I.A. NO.14 IN O.S. NO. 4358/2002 BY THE VTH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Petitioner is defendant No.6 in O.S.No.4358/2002 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, being

9 aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2014 rejecting I.A.14 filed seeking permission to file written statement, filed this writ petition.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 16 herein filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property to an extent of 1/5 th share and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into any sorts of agreement and any deed with any third party in respect of suit schedule property and restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and also for other reliefs. The contesting defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC praying of implead the petitioner herein as defendant No.6 in the said suit alleging that defendant No.5-Society has allotted some of the sites in favour of defendant No.6 and others. The said application came to be allowed on 21.11.2012. The applicants were suppose to file written statement within a

10 period of 30 days or for an extended period i.e., 90 days to be given by the Court. Since, the settlement talk is going on between the parties, he has not filed the written statement. Apart from that, he was a heart patient and taking regular treatment in hospital. Subsequently, he underwent bypass surgery on 30.07.2014. Hence, he could not file the written statement. Hence, he sought permission of the Court to file the written statement. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that after lapse of three years, permission was sought to file the written statement and there is no due diligence on the part of the impleading applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

3. Sri. K.Ravindranatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law. Though the suit has been filed in the year 2002, he was not made as a party to the said proceeding. Thereafter, as the settlement talk was going on between the parties, the matter was

11 referred to the Mediation Centre for compromise hoping that the matter would be amicably settled. Hence, he could not file the written statement. As he was a heart patient and taking regular treatment in the hospital and he underwent bypass surgery on 30.07.2014, there is delay in filing the written statement. The trial Court without considering the reasons assigned in the affidavit, rejected the application.

4. On the other hand, Sri. K.N.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 16 contended that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application as there is no bonafide reasons in the application filed seeking permission to file written statement. He has to file the written statement within 30 days or within a period of 90 days to be extended by the Court. However, the written statement sought to be filed in the year 2014. There is long lapse of more than three years. Hence, the said application cannot be allowed. The trial Court considering the matter

12 in detail, has rightly rejected the application and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and other relevant records.

6. The records clearly disclose that the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.6 on 21.12.2012.

Thereafter, the settlement talks between the parties was going on and the matter was referred to the Mediation

Centre hoping that the dispute between the parties is likely to be settled. Hence, he has not filed the written statement.

Defendant No.6 purchased the property from the Society which was regularly constituted and the Society is constituted for the purpose of forming the layout and allot sites to its members. Defendant No.6 is one of the member of the Society. In the meantime, due to heart problem, he was taking regular treatment and he had undergone bypass surgery on 30.07.2014. Hence, he could not file the written statement. The trial Court without considering the

13 facts of the case and reasons assigned in the affidavit, has rejected the application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in “(2009) 3 SCC 513 (MOHD. YUSUF

V. FAIJ MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS)” held that a provision of Order 8 Rule 1 is a directory. If the parties show sufficient cause for not filing the written statement, the

Court can exercise its power. Apart from that, this Court in

W.P.No.43771/2014 dated 12.11.2014, has allowed the writ petition filed by defendant No.11 by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and permitted defendant

No.11 to file written statement in the very same suit. The petitioner herein stand on the same footing as that of the petitioner in W.P.No.43771/2014.

7. In the instant case also the explanation offered by the petitioner has some substance. Since the suit was referred to Mediation Centre for amicable settlement of dispute between the parties and also due to ill-health, the petitioner could not file written statement. The application filed by the petitioner is supported by medical certificates.

14

The trial Court without examining the affidavit has rejected the application. The same is not sustainable in law. Hence,

I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The order dated 05.12.2014 is quashed. The trial Court is directed to accept the written statement and permit him to contest the matter.

Sd/- JUDGE

VM