Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka entertained two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act No. 40 of 2025). The petitioners, a senior advocate and a litigant, contested the introduction of the third proviso to Order V Rule 1 and the provisos to Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These amendments imposed an absolute outer limit of one hundred and twenty days for filing of the written statement and stipulated that upon expiry of this period, the defendant would forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not permit the written statement to be taken on record. The newly inserted Section 158-A was also challenged. The petitioners argued that the amendment overrides the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, takes away judicial discretion, and violates the inherent powers of the civil court under Section 151 CPC, as well as Articles 14 and 141 of the Constitution. The State of Karnataka defended the amendment as a legislative measure within competence aimed at curbing delays in civil trials. The court, after hearing arguments, reserved the matter for orders on 10.07.2026 and pronounced orders on 28.07.2026. The judgment canvassed a wide range of issues including legislative competence under the concurrent list, mandatory versus directory nature of procedural provisions, judicial discretion, harmonious construction of Order VIII Rules 1 and 10, the impact on rural litigants, rule-making powers of High Courts under Sections 122 to 127 CPC, and the doctrine of reading down. The full text of the judgment detailing the court’s analysis, reasoning, and final directions is not available in the provided excerpt; accordingly, the precise outcome and ratio decidendi cannot be stated.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment to CPC - Validity of State Amendment - Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024, Section 4; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 - The petitioners challenged the amendment as an attempt to override the Supreme Court's ruling in Salem Advocate Bar Association and as taking away judicial discretion. The court identified the issue whether the amendment overrides the law declared by the Supreme Court and whether it infringes upon procedural fairness. (Paras 2-3) The final holding and directions are not included in the provided excerpt. B) Civil Procedure - Mandatory vs Directory Provision - Absolute Time Limit for Written Statement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 1 - The amendment prescribed a 120-day outer limit for filing written statement with forfeiture of right. The court considered whether this provision is mandatory or directory and its consistency with the Supreme Court's interpretation. (Paras 4-5) The final reasoning is not available. C) Constitutional Law - Legislative Competence - Concurrent List - Constitution of India, Articles 246, 254 - The court examined whether the State Legislature had competence to enact the amendment under Entry 13 List III and whether it was inconsistent with central law. (Para 4) The full analysis is not provided. D) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - Whether Legislature Can Curtail Inherent Powers - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - The court considered if the amendment imposes an absolute embargo on the inherent powers of the civil court to extend time in exceptional cases. (Para 3) The determination is not in the excerpt. E) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Manifest Arbitrariness - Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 - The court assessed whether the amendment is manifestly arbitrary and violates the right to equality. The final decision on this point is not included. F) Statutory Interpretation - Reading Down - Applicability to Procedural Amendments - The court examined whether the amendment could be read down to preserve its constitutionality. The outcome is not provided. G) Civil Procedure - Rule-Making Power of High Courts - Sections 122-127 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 122 to 127 - The court considered whether newly inserted Section 158-A is consistent with the scheme of the rule-making power of High Courts. The conclusion is not available.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka Amendment Act, 2024, by introducing an absolute 120-day limit for filing written statement and forfeiting the right thereafter, is unconstitutional and unenforceable, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association, the inherent powers of civil courts, and the right to fair procedure under Article 14.
Law Points
- legislative competence under Article 246 read with Entry 13 List III
- mandatory vs directory provisions in CPC
- judicial discretion not to be curtailed by absolute bar
- inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be abrogated
- state amendment must not override Supreme Court's interpretation under Article 141
- reading down of provisions to preserve constitutionality
- Article 14 test of manifest arbitrariness
- procedural law should facilitate justice
- harmonious construction of Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10
- rule-making power of High Courts under Sections 122-127
