G SHIVALINGAIAH Vs. SHANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is defendant No.6 in O.S.No.4358/2002 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2014 rejecting I.A.14 filed seeking permission to file written statement, filed this writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 16 herein filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property to an extent of 1/5th share and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into any sorts of agreement and any deed with any third party in respect of suit schedule property and restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and also for other reliefs. The contesting defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC praying of implead the petitioner herein as defendant No.6 in the said suit alleging that defendant No.5 -Society has allotted some of the sites in favour of defendant No.6 and others. The said application came to be allowed on 21.11.2012. The applicants were suppose to file written statement within a period of 30 days or for an extended period i.e., 90 days to be given by the Court. Since, the settlement talk is going on between the parties, he has not filed the written statement. Apart from that, he was a heart patient and taking regular treatment in hospital. Subsequently, he underwent bypass surgery on 30.07.2014. Hence, he could not file the written statement. Hence, he sought permission of the Court to file the written statement. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that after lapse of three years, permission was sought to file the written statement and there is no due diligence on the part of the impleading applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) SRI . K.Ravindranatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law. Though the suit has been filed in the year 2002, he was not made as a party to the said proceeding. Thereafter, as the settlement talk was going on between the parties, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre for compromise hoping that the matter would be amicably settled. Hence, he could not file the written statement. As he was a heart patient and taking regular treatment in the hospital and he underwent bypass surgery on 30.07.2014, there is delay in filing the written statement. The trial Court without considering the reasons assigned in the affidavit, rejected the application.