IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2'" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
BEFORE .xOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.vENL;GORALA.VG'_O'Y§"D,A"'
WRIT PETITION NO.35s58/2011B(G%M€CRCEI,A,O'
BETWEEN:
R_E.PRESE'N.TED BY SR: V' B RAVITEJAS.
WRITJDETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
O--,S;'!\FC).§99_6/Q9 AT ANNEXORE A ON TE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY
'»».'C.IvII._j;_:RJDGE, BANGALORE CITY, AS BEING ILLEGAL, ARBETRARY AND
SR1 SRIDHAR REVANUR
S/O LATE SRI R RAMACHANDRAvIA'H.,_
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ~ ._
R/A No.81, 15"' FLOOR, V
IBT" CROSS, I" 'A' MAIN,»I5T STAGE,.
AECS LAYOUT, SAN3AY_[\U--¥G_A'R, '
BANGALORE. .
PETITIONER
(BY SRI v.B.SHIvA RLIMAR,,ADI,-".)«., ._
AND:
M/S RATHYAYINI'IN\;*EST'M,EN3f
DEVELOPMENTS P.'I,TD., ' _ " ,
A COMPANY I,NCORRORAT'ED.=DN'DER THE
COMPANIES, .ACT,<1956,' - ,
HA_'I"/INC? ITS.,._F€*E(3-I.ST«E RED OER-I--CE AT
NO.'2,2/2,'3,$T MAIN ROAD,
3AYAM.AH.A_L,*- _ 'I , '
BANGALORE--560 B-45,
RESPONDENT
,P--RA'YI,N£3AAT'O._QUASH THE ORDER ON IA NO.1 DATED 30.09.2010 IN
CO NT RA R'?! O F LAW.
Ti-EIS PETITION COMING Oi\§ FOR PRELIMINARY HEARIi\iG__THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOL,i_OWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner has filed 0.8.5996/O9 against the~re.s:pon’deriit_tog:O ‘»
pass a decree of ejectment in respectiaaof O
premises and for consequentiai .rei.i__efs.OV”i._i’he
defendant entered appearance throug’h*a:ie_a’rnedco_uV’nseVig. Since
written statement was not fiiedzfwiithjin1-sit):’da.y’s”~periodythe Trial
Court took the writtenA.statern.ri*n:’.E_ fi’ie.dq’:R~.’i.VV—ii’he defendant
filed I.A.1 on 18.87H1i(JOttiiiiipgeryrnit ::iivl:eOuwi’i’tten statement to
which the petitioner’ ohgections. Finding merit
in I.A.1, the same subject to
payment of cost_ of the written statement had
aiready been-V fgigiedufi posted for framing of issues.
FeVe_|:i.nig has filed this writ petition.
hat/_eV._pe:ru’sed the writ petition papers.
‘,3. Learined counsei appearing for the petitioner
2§:ontejri»rfedR”«–that, the Eearned Triai Judge has erred in ailowing
and the impugned order is contrary to the mandatory
EL
— r
provision under 0 8 R 1 CPC. Learned counsel contendsthat,
the impugned order is irrational and illegal.
4. The suit was filed on 28.8.09. Arter’irfi.,:seirit\iii,clel”oi’lf
summons, the respondent entered a,{jpAear’anCe .th.rou_gh”*~his”‘.
iearned Counsel. On 11.6.10, the _Trial iécouirt tool”‘:Cf=«”Dt’i-fifialgg Ca”Sf3Si’***~t«.’e written statement fiied beiatediy
could compensating the plaintiff.
S. A Keepiinigiin view the affidavit fiied in support of I.A.1
the reason for deiay, noticed supra, in my opinion, the
3.,4’Tried’fiyotirtjfis justified in exercising the discretion to grant the
i!
__y,:/»”‘
prayer in I.A.1 and accept the written statement subject to
payment of cost of $300/–.
6. There is neither any irrationality much less
committed by the Trial Court in passing the” it
ground to entertain the writ petition.
In the resuit, the writ petition s’tsa:n”ds rejected. A
sex”
sac*