Karnataka High Court: The Single Bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the petition filed for the submission of written statement, considering that there was no reasonable ground for the condonation of delay of 4745 days by the petitioner. The Court observed that,
“The time to file written statement can be extended, in exceptional circumstances. The delay can be condoned by the Court but, it does not mean that defendant can take as much time as he can, in filing the written statement.”
Background
The case arose when the application by the petitioner-Defendant 2 was seeking permission to file a written statement after a lapse of 4745 days delay which was dismissed by the trial court as the suit was filed in the year 2006 and more than 20 years have lapsed.
The application filed by the petitioner-Defendant 2 stated 2 grounds for the delay. Firstly, he submitted that he was working in another city and came to Bengaluru only in the year 2012. Secondly, he contended that he only had one advocate representing Respondents 1, 4 and 5 and he was not called for filing the written statement.
The petitioner-Defendant 2 while stating the case Kempegowda v. Venkamma, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 6814 relying on the judgment of Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 contended that the written statement filed after 8 years was allowed by the Court imposing costs. It was further stated that the defendant has made an exceptional case and explained circumstances which are beyond the control of the defendant in the delay caused in filling of the written statement.
Decision and Analysis
The Court after an examination of the application filed by the petitioner-Defendant 2 failed to make out any grounds for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The only reason as set forth in the application-affidavit filed was that the petitioner-Defendant 2 was not in the city till 2012.
The Court observed that it cannot be taken into consideration that the petitioner-Defendant 2 was not aware of the progress of the case. The trial court has referred to the sufficient number of opportunities granted to the petitioner-Defendant 2 to file his written statement.
The Court emphasising on the provisions for filing written statement under Order 8 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) stated that it ordinarily requires to be filed within 90 days of the date of receipt of summons, unless the Court grants an extension for reasons to be recorded in writing. in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 states that if the defendant does not file his written statement within 120 days from the date of receipt of the summons, his right to file the written statement shall be forfeited and the written statement will not be taken on record.
The Court reiterated the judgment of Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co., (2018) 6 SCC 639 which has held that the time to file written statement can be extended, in exceptional circumstances. The delay can be condoned by the Court but, it does not mean that defendant can take as much time as he can, in fling the written statement.
The Court observed that the suit was filed in 2006, and the petitioner was served the notice in 2006 itself. Still, there is 4745 days of delay in filing the written statement. The Court after considering the documents on record held that no sufficient cause or cogent reasons have been shown by the petitioner-Defendant 2 qua the delay.
The Court dismissed the petition emphasising the failure of the petitioner to provide any reasonable grounds for delay in filing the written statement.
[Ramesh Kumar v. K.S. Satish Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 3001, decided on 19-2-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rahul S Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Surya Prasad L, Sudheer D.A, Advocates
