BHARATHI SWAMY Vs. S.H. SHARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 95/2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 26-11-2012 made on I.A. No. 7 by the II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysore, has filed this writ petition.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 95/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysore seeking for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant and her agents from interfering with her peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, an application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo. Though the court granted sufficient time to file written statement, the first defendant did not file any written statement. After lapse of 7 years, I.A. No. 7 has been filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to file written statement. In the said application, it was contended that though she was served with notice, her earlier advocate had retired from the case and she was not aware of non-filing of the written statement. Hence, she sought for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail and relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court R.N. Jadi and Brothers v. Subhaschandra, 2007 AIR(SC) 2571 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri. G. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that advocate appearing for the petitioner had not filed written statement. The petitioner being an aged lady, having no worldly knowledge, believed the words of her counsel and kept quite. Only after the earlier advocate retired from the case, she engaged another advocate, then only she came to know about non filing of the written statement. Thereafter steps were taken to file the written statement and application I.A. No. 7 has been filed seeking permission to file the written statement. But, the Trial Court without considering the case pleaded by the petitioner, rejected the application which is contrary to law and hence sought for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A. No. 7 by allowing the writ petition.