BORAMMA @ LAKSHMI Vs. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th defendant filed the present writ petition against the order dated 20.06.2017 made in O.S.No.13/2013 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, rejecting the application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to permit her to file the written statement along with defendant No.6.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession contending that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family and ancestral properties of the family and there was no partition. The defendant Nos.1, 2, 5, 7 and 9 filed written statement, denied the plaint averments and sought for dismissal of the suit. When the matter was posted for plaintiffs' evidence, at that stage, the 4th defendant filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to file written statement along with defendant No.6, contending that, though she appeared through her counsel in the suit, could not file the written statement as she could not meet her advocate, as she was working as a staff nurse at a Government Hospital, Mandya, and her sister was residing separately and does not know the Court proceedings. In the meanwhile, the compromise talks were going on between the plaintiffs and other defendants and as such, they could not file the written statement. It was further contended that if the application is not allowed, they will be put to much hardship and great injustice would be caused to them as they have a very good case to defendant. On the other hand, no hardship or injustice would be caused to the other side. Further, the non filing of the written statement was not intentional, but it due to the bonafide reasons stated above. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing objections, contending that inspite of granting sufficient time, the defendants failed to file the written statement, the application was filed after four years and was highly belated and therefore, sought to dismiss the application. The Trial Court, considering the application and objections, by the impugned order, rejected the application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.