Sri. Srinaag B.S., v. Sri. Prakash N. Joshi,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 21162 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. SRINAAG B.S., S/O LATE SRI. SOMSHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.799, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH A CROSS, GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, NEAR NELAGADARANAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073. …PETITIONER (BY SRI REVANTH P.N., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. DEEPA J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1SRI. PRAKASH N. JOSHI, S/O LATE SRI. N.K. JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OMKARA, NO.2, FIRST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 028. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAKESH B BHATT, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED

18.06.2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO.VIII IN O.S. NO.4031/2023 BY THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Revanth P.N., learned counsel appearing for Smt. Deepa J., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rakesh B. Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶2This petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed on I.A. No. VIII in O.S. No. 4031/2023, whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and struck off the defence of the defendant.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by order dated 21.08.2024, the trial Court directed the defendant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month. However, it is submitted that more than 50% of the amount directed by the trial Court has already been deposited.

3.1 It is further submitted that, subject to compliance with the other conditions, the petitioner may be permitted to contest the suit and put forth his defence.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who has entered caveat, submits that the order dated

21.08.2024 remains uncomplied with as on date and that, despite sufficient opportunities having been granted, the defendant has failed to comply with the order of the trial Court. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is justified in striking off the defence of the defendant.

¶5Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6It is evident from the impugned order that, by order dated 21.08.2024, the trial Court directed the defendant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month. Non-compliance with the said order was noticed on several occasions, and multiple opportunities were granted to the defendant to comply with the same. It is further evident that the trial Court, on more than one occasion, directed the

defendant to comply with the order dated 21.08.2024. However, justifiable ground or sufficient cause is forthcoming to explain the defendant's failure to comply with the said order.

¶7In that view of the matter, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order, whereby the defence of the defendant was struck off for failure to comply with the order dated 21.08.2024. No ground is made out to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2