RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, R. NAGARAJA AND HENJARAPPA BOTH S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA Vs. CHANDRAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, RAMANNA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AND CHANDRASHEKAR S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANDRAPPA - Respondent, instituted the suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession claiming 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties and for declaration of will dated 17.6.1991 executed by deceased Thimmakkd wife of Hanumantharayappa, in favour of the 3rd Defendant, is not binding on the share of the Plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs. Suit was instituted on 21.8.03. Suit summons were served on the Petitioners on 19.09.03. The written statement was not filed. An application was filed on 22.7.09 by the Petitioners under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure to permit them to file their defence/written statement. Along with the said application, written statement was also filed. The application was opposed by the Plaintiff on the ground that, there is inordinate and unexplained delay and in between, the suit has made progress, wherein he has deposed as PW -1. Finding merit in the objections, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application which was registered as I.A.9. Aggrieved, the Defendants 2, 4 and 5 have filed this writ petition.

(2.) SRI M. Jai Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would contend that, the non filing of the written statement was on account of the suit being transferred from Hiriyur to Chitradurga and thereafter, back to Hiriyur and in between, there was change of counsel and that apart, the 1st Petitioner i.e., Defendant No. 2 suffered a paralytic stroke and was unable to move about. Learned Counsel submits that the cause shown for the delay has not been considered in the correct perspective and as a result, the impugned order has been passed by adopting a pedantic approach to the matter.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel on both sides, I have perused the writ petition record.