In a significant ruling on procedural fairness, the Karnataka High Court has underscored the importance of allowing defendants to file written statements, even after substantial delay, to protect their valuable right to defend. The Court set aside a trial court order rejecting an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to recall an earlier order closing the right to file a written statement, subject to payment of costs and expedited disposal of the suit.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from a long-standing property dispute involving family members. The respondents-plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 25300/2013 before the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, seeking a declaration that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 17830/2005 on 20.04.2009 was null and void and not binding on them. The earlier suit, O.S. No. 17830/2005, was a partition suit among family members, and the plaintiffs in the present suit were not parties to it.
Key Facts
- The petitioners-defendants were served with summons in O.S. No. 25300/2013 and entered appearance, seeking time to file a written statement.
- The petitioners failed to file the written statement, leading the trial court to close their right to do so vide order dated 12.06.2014.
- The petitioners claimed they could not file the written statement due to the death of their mother and later their father (Defendant No. 3 in the original suit) during the pendency of the case.
- On 09.02.2021, the trial court rejected an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking to recall the order dated 12.06.2014 and permit filing of the written statement.
- The petitioners offered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the plaintiffs for the inconvenience caused if granted another opportunity.
Procedural History
- 20.04.2009: Decree passed in O.S. No. 17830/2005 (partition suit among family members).
- 2013: Respondents-plaintiffs file O.S. No. 25300/2013 seeking declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 17830/2005 is null and void.
- 12.06.2014: Trial court closes the right of petitioners to file written statement in O.S. No. 25300/2013.
- 09.02.2021: Trial court rejects application under Section 151 CPC to recall the order dated 12.06.2014.
- 2022: Petitioners file Writ Petition No. 4135/2022 before the Karnataka High Court challenging the order dated 09.02.2021.
- 08.06.2026: High Court allows the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the trial court’s order dated 09.02.2021.
- Permission to file the written statement in O.S. No. 25300/2013.
- Disposal of the suit within a stipulated timeframe.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the trial court erred in rejecting an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to recall an order closing the right to file a written statement, particularly when the defendants offered to pay costs and the suit involved joint family property.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners argued that they could not file the written statement due to the death of their parents during the pendency of the suit.
- They contended that the right to defend is a valuable right and denying them an opportunity to file the written statement would cause irreparable prejudice.
- They offered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the plaintiffs for the delay and inconvenience caused.
- They relied on the principle that procedural fairness must not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities.
For the Respondents
- The respondents supported the trial court’s order, arguing that the petitioners had made incorrect statements on oath while seeking condonation of delay.
- They contended that the petitioners had no merit in their contentions and had delayed filing the written statement for over 8 years without valid reasons.
- They submitted that the suit, filed in 2013, had been unnecessarily prolonged and sought dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary costs.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court meticulously examined the facts and legal principles involved. The Court observed:
"The right to defend the suit is a valuable right available to the parties to the proceedings and if such an opportunity is provided to the defendants to file the written statement, ends of justice would be met."
The Court noted that the petitioners were family members and intended to defend the suit on the ground that the suit properties were joint family properties. While the trial court had assigned detailed reasons for rejecting the application, the High Court emphasized that procedural fairness must prevail, especially in cases involving valuable rights.
The Court also took cognizance of the prolonged duration of the suit, which had been pending since 2013, and directed expedited disposal. It imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioners, payable to the plaintiffs, as a condition for allowing the application.
The Verdict
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2021. The Court directed:
- The trial court to take the written statement on record, subject to the petitioners paying Rs. 50,000 as costs to the plaintiffs on 16.06.2026.
- If the costs are not paid on 16.06.2026, the order dated 09.02.2021 would stand revived.
- The trial court to permit the petitioners to cross-examine PW-1.
- The trial court to dispose of the suit within 10 months from 16.06.2026.
- The parties to cooperate for early disposal of the suit.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Fairness Must Not Be Sacrificed for Technicalities
- Courts must balance procedural rigor with substantive justice. While delays in filing written statements cannot be condoned lightly, denying a party the right to defend solely on technical grounds may lead to miscarriage of justice.
- Practitioners should argue that Section 151 CPC empowers courts to pass orders to meet the ends of justice, even if it means recalling earlier orders closing the right to file written statements.
Costs as a Condition for Condonation of Delay
- Courts may impose costs as a condition for condoning delay, especially in cases involving prolonged litigation.
- In this case, the High Court allowed the petitioners to file the written statement subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 to the plaintiffs, setting a precedent for cost-based condonation.
Expedited Disposal of Long-Pending Suits
-
The Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within 10 months, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of long-pending cases.
-
Parties must cooperate to ensure timely disposal, failing which courts may impose strict timelines.
-
Practitioners should note that while delays may be condoned, courts are increasingly imposing strict timelines for disposal to prevent abuse of process.
-
Offering costs can strengthen arguments for condonation of delay, as seen in this case.
