EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAEORE
DATED THIS THE 97"' DAY OF DECEMBER*--2..Q9§: "
BEFORE:
THE HDNBLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDD DYi{ARED;D§b.
WRIT PETITION N0.1?§2°4} Oi'~52;f)'V(:)'9EV(C:M¥?C;j}'*£f)V
BETWEEN:
Sri.BaE21subramzm:ya1n, '-
Since deceased by Legal'rep2'eVsen.tVzit~§Ves ' E
3) S1'i.:}Xf1'éin'ieh;B. _ _
S01": ,0 f 81'}, .,Balz1:§-1,1b1fr;1'n.:gny:1:'n.,'
Aged about 3'/_ --~ " ~ «.
b) Sm-:Az1as'uy,amm'a,
i._fe_ of Sri. BéI3as.ubramaD.yam,
59 Yezars.
,. ;_;_ U"1';.1.,a
' gh.€e:'1._of; Sri.BaIasu§:>ramanyam,
Agedabtjilt 34 Years.
., Ct)' DS_§1T1t.Suma,
_ ' * .._D.>;1u.ghter of Sz"i.BaIasubramanyam,
Aged about 3E Years.
All residing at Si1az1.1<a:" Mutt Road,
Fort,
K0131: 3 . . . PET.ET1ON ERS
[~.J
(By Shri.B.S.Shashi Bhushan, Advocate)
AND:
E. Sri M21njuna[hai.:--1h, -
Son of Arehak Somaiah, V
Major,
residing at Shankar M_u.E{ Road,
Fort,
Kolar.
2. Sri Chandrashekai?aiDi.xiitd? ; ii
Son of Arehak S<)if(1;_1i';1h,
Aged abogzt 66 Yeiarsg' . .--
FOH
3. S'mt.'Putta _ ii "
Wiife_'<if .Sri'.Afch21k iS()i'I'I£1E.£1h,
* -Aged iab,oL'1t~%§5 Years.
Nanjundaiah.
ii _ "S.(ir1_OfAVA:'.ch21k S0mai.ah,
"1V!é1js)1'.~ V V
and 4 residing at
" .Shankar Mutt Road,
Fort.
Kola}:
SmE.Ramzi,
Daughter of Sii.B21Easub1'amanyam,
Aged about 28 Years,
Residing at Shankar Mutt Road,
5
residing at Pé./eluit Rt_)aq~3.* V.
Fort. ,
Kola}: ... RES POND ._'
(Respondent.No.5 deleted per the order
Court dated: 13.7.2009)
(By Shri_K.N.}agadish, Advocate fotivRe§;po%idieint.iNo-. C it
Shri.M.S.Ptirushotam, Advocate for R’e:sp<)ndent.'hi'o'.'2) 2 C'
This Writ Petition fi1ed"'iind_ei'iiL~'.i'ti<:1es'226~'énd 227 of
the Constitution of lnd~ifli:t"pi'2tyin;;g.to»._'ez1iiafor the records in
O.S.No.1.£5/1999 on the !.fi1e'v=of' Judge (Senior
Division) Kolar peruse the"sa:fr2e 2ind,_ailo'w'Vth»is writ petition and
§TE1is_W"£"i_tVI?etitio.:f1"'eomiajg on for orders this day. the
Court made the _foi1fowin;1gi2~_ " __
iQWbRDER
preseint —- —-wi"it petition is filed by the legal
_rep_rese11t;;itt.i.\?e.si "of the deceased defendant no.2. The grievance
ot'».the petitioiier is that the defendant no.2 was their father who
died the pendeney of the suit and that the petitioners
not aware of the suit pending and became aware only
C " when notice was taken out by way ofpaper publication.
{S
'_ sta_te5m.erit. V'
The defendants having entered appearance legal
representatives of the deceased defendant before the"triall"'-Ljdttrt
had sought for permission to file additional writte.lnl'st,ate:rnelnt in
addition to the written statement ()n;:'i'ee()::'tl led
The Tribunal has rejected the 1
2. The counsel would of
this court in the case of his LR?
and Others vs. Bczsavvaifajdgyqcz’lV_,rel7(2r’f«:2dV’tit. [LR 2007 KAR
1578 to c-t»11ten’dx.’thatitthellegal”representatives of a deceased
defeatdant”»wlo:,1itil’ _lta§x_e’ right to file additional written
. after referring to the case law on the above
suh’je.ct,v’-.VAha:3″‘l heid that from :1 reading of the decisions in
Viit§y.a\Alati vs. Man Mohan and Others — {LR 1999 KAR SN.
lll=’g§§.54 Gajraj vs. Sudha and Others in AIR 1986 SC 1952 and
walso from a reading of the tenor of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code
of Civil. Procedure. 1908 has held as under M
3
5
“it is clear that the legal repiesentatives of the deceased
defendant are entitled to file additional written statement
or objections before the trial court. TheT”*.legal
representatives are entitled to take a deten.ge”-Wl1iC»hVis
available to their predecessor in lilll-13:” V’
representatives are not entitledto take”i’ttednsi’ste’nt old”
. A
contradictory plea on the ad.t11.itted jfaietsi -m’tttie”l:b_y *t:t1{3
deceased. The legal ret:~tesentatiVes a1’e_.not.Vientitll;2d.’lto.V
take any defence relating lI”(~1l.l”i.**:lI’ independent
3. The cottnsel’ ._y\}ould.’_ itovpiace reliance on this
settled prinei’pileV _St_;ibtT'[i.ll that unless the written
statemenfiis’ talt’reject’ the additional written statement
. filed byth.e-.§ietiti()ne1′.
” ._ the counsel for the petitioner would submit
that “tl1.ei”ea is no inconsistency in the defence set by the deceased
and in the additional. defence sought by way of filing
agdditional written statement.
6
4. The counset for t.he respondent would oppose the
present writ petition and wotiid submit that the s.1.iit h.lasi:4heen
delayed over years and in the earlier pi'()ceediyti’gs. lzefoife thi«s__i’*~
Court, there was a specific directieii forejarliy “disposa’l~.,Qf.,,the
suit. The present cii’cumstanc.e’ that tlielegai represeritatiyesliof
the deceased defendant seeking___t’o-.tat3d_ to th’e«-pleadii1gs at this
stage would procrastinateithe ywould 1.ead to further
delay and that the trial (:o’1irt has”1’igih_tlyl’.reii’et;llted the application
seeki to E’i3leifaddi’tiiOnai ~ xfwittenllstateine nt.
5. ;tiltl)l’.=.;fei.lrle.i’,l’giveiithe ClICtl1’I’3SEZJI1C€ that the death of
ref;pfondent no.2’*w.a1S___in~<)t the niziking of the present petitioner,
' .their_r'i.gh't Tfile additional written statement cannot be taken
away as hfiildftfi several decisions referred to in the above said
case."Thei'efture, the right of the petitioner to file additional
wtitt'en statemetit cannot be denied. it wouid be open for the
trial cmiit to reiect the additional written statement, if it is
found to be inconsistetit with the writteir statement fiied by the
3
deceased defendant no.2 and if the present petitioner seeks to
set out any independent right by way of the additional:ytifitten
statement. As Eong as a defence. was 21\-‘z1i_l.i2_ih1e«[‘to__”_
predecessor in titie, the same ought tooiaee te1ke=.i”on*1’e1_C()i’d. ” ,
The consequent delayethat Wonld restlit-‘..in tithe’:
process by permitting the legald’re.p1″esent;ttii\?es jto tender
additional evidence is in—-.i._n:eVit;{tble.w ”
:o}iiiTi1’e.,ititial tffoit:1″ti”is:”diree.teEi’to examine the contents of
the additionaf wntteij’sta’tena»e1?;t and to consider if the same is in
E1CC().I”£1E1r1C€- “w._ith’~t”i”:e. ‘-tlbiove se.ttle.d princE.p1e.s, insofar as
;3efi’nittii§i’g the. 1egalWi’e.prese.ntatiVes to file additional written
A i.:iid~”down by this Court in Shankarappa and Others
vs}Basitlwaiféijappa reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1578 and
i ii i ” p1<n.eeed"'iiurther. g
The writ petiiion stands disp<:)se<i ()t'acCord_irigEyA.:A
it is wholly unnecessary to :'ei:eA:*z:te that }1;1'iIir–i,g :'ég:,_1j1jd 119
the age of the proceedings the sh»a'11_ e~x}3ed'i§é~..tbh'€._
further proceedings.
H