Sri. P.N. Seshagiri v. Sri. Venkatesh N. Parigi

e -e1e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:39998 WP(No.(15728(of(2026 CNR:(KAHC010321532026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(30 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(VIJAYKUMAR(A.(PATIL( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(15728(OF(2026((GM-CPC) BETWEEN:( SRI.,P.N.,SESHAGIRI, S/O,LATE,P.G.,NARASIMAH,MURTHY, AGED,ABOUT,57,YEARS,,, R/AT,NO.,12,,POLICE,STATION,ROAD,, BASAVANAGUDI,,BENGALURU-04, REPRESENTED,BY,HIS,GPA,HOLDER, SMT.,GEETHA,SHANKAR, W/O,P.N.,SESHAGIRI,, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS,,, R/AT,NO.12,,POLICE,STATION,ROAD,, BASAVANAGUDI,,, BENGALURU,-,04, …PETITIONER, Digitallytisigned by (BY,SRI.,N.,DILLI,RAJAN,,ADVOCATE,FOR, SHARADAVANI ,,,,,,SRI.,SUBBA,REDDY,K.N.,,ADVOCATE),B Location:0High AND: Courttiof Karnataka SRI.,VENKATESH,N.,PARIGI, S/O,LATE,P.G.,NARASIMHA,MURTHY, AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS,,, R/AT,NO.16220,,PHOEBE,ROAD,,, APARTMENT,NO.,1207,,FRISCO,,, TEXAS,-,75035,,USA, …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,G.L.,VISWANATH,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,APPEARING, ,,,,,FOR,SMT.,MANASA,B.,RAO,,ADVOCATE),

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23-4-2026 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5039/2024 IN RESPECT OF I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 OF CPC BY THE LEARNED IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-5 VIDE ANNEXURE -A ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

23.04.2026 passed in O.S. No.5039/2024 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short).

¶2Heard Sri N. Dilli Rajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Subha Reddy K.N, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.L. Vishwanath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Manasa B. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶3The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S. No.5039/2024 seeking relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioner herein is the defendant who entered appearance before the Trial Court by filing a caveat petition.

¶4It is to be noticed that the petitioner failed to file the written statement within the stipulated time. Hence, by order dated 23.04.2026, the Trial Court recorded that no written statement had been filed. The records further indicate that after a period of one year, the defendant filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), seeking permission to file the written statement by condoning the delay. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, by recording reasons that the written statement was sought to be filed beyond the period of 120 days, rejected the application.

¶5It is required to be noticed that the suit is one for partition and separate possession. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, is required to be provided an opportunity to place the defence to oppose the said suit, as the rights of the parties involved in the suit pertain to immovable properties, hence, not providing an opportunity would cause prejudice to the petitioner-defendant.

¶6By accepting the cause shown for the non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated time, I am of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. However, it cannot be ignored that the application has been filed after a period of one year. Hence, the same is required to be allowed on costs.

¶7Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 23.04.2026 passed in O.S. No.5039/2024 by the IX

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii. The application filed by the petitioner - defendant seeking permission to file written statement is allowed. iv. The Trial Court is directed to accept the written statement on record and proceed with the suit in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner-defendant paying cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent. v. The Trial Court shall endeavor to dispose of the suit as early as possible. vi. The parties shall co-operate for the early disposal of the suit. vii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1