High Court of Karnataka Quashes Trial Court Decree in Suit for Declaration — Petitioner Granted Opportunity to File Written Statement. Failure to File Written Statement Does Not Automatically Entitle Plaintiff to Judgment Under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Raja R, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (trial court) in O.S. No. 25826/2021. The suit was filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that a document titled 'cancellation of gift deed' dated 29.10.2018, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Banasawadi, Bengaluru, executed between defendant No.1 and the deceased father of the plaintiff and the defendants, was null and void, illegal, and not binding, along with consequential relief. The trial court, by the impugned order, decreed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the ground that the defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) failed to file a written statement within the prescribed time. The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in passing the decree mechanically without considering the merits of the case and without granting an opportunity to the defendant to file a written statement. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, held that the trial court's order was unsustainable. The court observed that Order VIII Rule 10 CPC gives discretion to the court to either pronounce judgment or make such other order as it thinks fit, and that a decree cannot be passed automatically on failure to file a written statement. The court further noted that the time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, and the court has the power to extend time in exceptional circumstances. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to permit the defendant No.1 to file a written statement within a specified period and thereafter proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - Failure to File Written Statement - Discretion of Court - The trial court passed a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC solely because the defendant failed to file a written statement within 90 days. The High Court held that the court has discretion to either pronounce judgment or make such other order as it thinks fit, and that a decree cannot be passed mechanically without considering the merits. The court must apply its mind and may grant an opportunity to file a written statement in the interest of justice. (Paras 4-6)

B) Civil Procedure - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Time Limit for Filing Written Statement - The time limit of 90 days under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory. The court has the power to extend the time for filing a written statement in exceptional circumstances. The trial court ought to have considered the request of the defendant to file a written statement instead of passing a decree. (Paras 4-6)

C) Civil Procedure - Order VIII Rule 5 CPC - Admission - Failure to file written statement does not amount to admission of all allegations. The court must still examine the plaint and determine if the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The trial court failed to do so and passed a decree without any application of mind. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in passing a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, solely on the ground that the defendant failed to file a written statement within the prescribed time, without considering the merits of the case or granting an opportunity to file a written statement.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 25826/2021, and directed the trial court to permit the defendant No.1 to file a written statement within a specified period and thereafter proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
  • Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
  • Order VIII Rule 5 CPC
  • discretion of court
  • failure to file written statement
  • automatic decree
  • opportunity to defend
  • principles of natural justice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 40

W.P. No.5936/2022 (GM-CPC)

2026-07-07

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

Ms. Carol D'Souza, Mr. Prasanna Kumar P, Mr. M. Madhusudhan, Mr. Viswanath Setty, Mr. K.P. Yashodha

Sri. Raja .R

Sri. R. Nagaraj, Sri. R. Rajashekar, Sri. Raja Babu R, State of Karnataka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the trial court in a suit for declaration.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 25826/2021, which decreed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

Filing Reason

The trial court passed a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC solely on the ground that the defendant failed to file a written statement within the prescribed time, without considering the merits of the case.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed the impugned order dated 22.02.2022 in O.S. No. 25826/2021.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in passing a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC without considering the merits of the case and without granting an opportunity to file a written statement. Whether the time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is mandatory or directory.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the trial court erred in passing the decree mechanically without applying its mind and without granting an opportunity to the defendant to file a written statement. The respondent's counsel argued that the trial court's order was correct as the defendant failed to file a written statement within the prescribed time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Order VIII Rule 10 CPC gives discretion to the court to either pronounce judgment or make such other order as it thinks fit, and a decree cannot be passed automatically on failure to file a written statement. The court must apply its mind and may grant an opportunity to file a written statement in the interest of justice. The time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory.

Judgment Excerpts

Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC gives discretion to the court to either pronounce judgment or make such other order as it thinks fit. The time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory. The trial court ought to have considered the request of the defendant to file a written statement instead of passing a decree.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 25826/2021 before the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, seeking declaration that a cancellation of gift deed dated 29.10.2018 was null and void. The trial court passed an order dated 22.02.2022 decreeing the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC on the ground that the defendant failed to file a written statement. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VIII Rule 10, Order VIII Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 5
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case Due to Erroneous Appreciation of Evidence on Negligence. Compensation of Rs.85,000/- awarded by Tribunal upheld but finding on negligence reversed based on preponderance of probab...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses State's Revision Petitions in Asian Paints VAT Case — Input Tax Credit on Capital Goods Allowed Despite Non-Use in Manufacturing. Section 11(4) of KVAT Act, 2003 does not restrict ITC on capital goods used for gene...