Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mr. Venugopal Krishnamurthy and Mrs. Poorna Venugopal, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-65) in O.S. No. 5660/2022. By the impugned order, the trial court allowed I.A. No. 10 filed by the petitioners and struck out the defence of the respondent, Smt. M. Tejaswini, for non-compliance with a conditional order. The background is that the petitioners had filed a suit against the respondent. The respondent was granted time to file her written statement on several occasions. On 22.02.2024, the trial court passed a conditional order granting the respondent a final opportunity to file the written statement on or before 22.03.2024, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500. The respondent failed to pay the costs and did not file the written statement within the extended time. Consequently, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 10 seeking to strike out the defence. The trial court allowed the application, holding that the respondent had not complied with the conditional order and that the court had the power to strike out the defence under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The respondent contended that the trial court erred in striking out the defence without giving an opportunity to be heard and that the order was harsh. The High Court examined the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10 CPC. It noted that Order VIII Rule 1 mandates that a written statement be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons, and the court may extend the time up to 90 days. In this case, the respondent had been granted multiple extensions. The conditional order of 22.02.2024 was a final opportunity. The respondent failed to comply with the condition of paying costs and filing the written statement. The trial court, therefore, rightly struck out the defence. The High Court held that the impugned order was not perverse or without jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order VIII Rule 1 - Striking Out Defence - Conditional Order - Non-Compliance - The trial court granted time to file written statement subject to payment of costs. Upon failure to pay costs and file written statement within the extended period, the court struck out the defence. Held that the order was justified as the respondent failed to comply with the condition, and the court has power to strike out defence under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - The High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 will not interfere with an interlocutory order unless it is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error. Held that the trial court's order was neither perverse nor without jurisdiction, and the writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in striking out the defence of the respondent for non-compliance with a conditional order granting time to file written statement upon payment of costs, and whether such order is amenable to interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 05.07.2024 striking out the defence of the respondent for non-compliance with the conditional order.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
- Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- striking out defence
- conditional order
- extension of time
- costs
- non-compliance
- automatic consequence
- writ jurisdiction under Article 227
