MALLAPPA AND ORS. Vs. NINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No. 390 of 2013 on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navalgunda. They have filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the order dated 21-8-2014, rejecting the application filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking permission to file the written statement by condoning the delay in filing the written statement. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking for possession of suit property. Defendants 1 to 4 were served with notice on 16-12-2013. However, they did not file the written statement as provided under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC. After lapse of more than six months, an application was filed seeking condonation of delay and also seeking permission to file written statement. The plaintiff filed objection to the said application contending that, at that belated stage, the written statement filed by the defendant could not be accepted. It was contended by the plaintiff that, as per the provision of Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC, the written statement has to be filed within a period of 30 days after the service of notice, in any case, within an extended period of 90 days. But in the instant case, after lapse of more than six months, the written statement was sought to be filed along with the application for condonation of delay.

(2.) The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail, found that the explanation offered for delay in filing the written statement was not acceptable and the reason assigned by the defendants would not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay and rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the defendants therein.

(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders impugned and other relevant records.