SIDDALINGAYYA versus GURI. LINGAPPA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 05-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 476 
SI JDALINGAYYA 
v. 
GURI. LINGAPPA & ORS. 
(Civil l.ppeal No. 868 of20ll) 
SKTEMBER 05, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL Al' 0.ABHAY MANOHAR. SAPRE, .JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 01: VIII -· Written statement 
- OpportU1iity lo file - C 11 facts, in suit for renvery by appellant 
C . trial court did not grant sufficient opport1mit.1 to respondents to 
file written statement and decreed the suit agai '1st the respondents 
- First appeal there agairst dismissed - Seco11'1 appeal allowed by 
the High Court, while settiug aside thejudgment:decree of two courts 
below and case remandei.' lo the trial court for deciding the civil 
suit afl'esh on merits after affording opport11111ty lo respondents to 
D file written statement ~ Jmposition of cost of Rs. 11,2501- on 
respondents to be paid to rf'PPellant .Gs a pre-condition for filing the 
written statement within the extended time - On appeal, held: · 
Reasoning and the conclil.~ion arrived at. by Hig.1! Court is justified 
E 
F 
- Ttme. was granted to respondents to file wrilfen. statement initially 
before closing their right Ip file written staten1ent1 yet1i1e trial court 
instead of closing their right to file written swtement should have 
granted some· time to respondents subject to pay;nent of reasonable 
amount of cost to the apJ.ellant to compensate; the inconvenience 
caused to the appellant. ,; 
/ 
Dismissing the app~al, the Court 
·! 
r 
I 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court made no mistake in allowing 
the ·respondents' appeal and remanding the suit to the trial court 
for fresh trial on merits after affording an opportunity to the 
· respondents (defendants) to file their written statement to enable 
them to contest the suit on merits. [Para 14)f479-G] 
G 
. 
. 
H 
1.2 It is true that the time was grante'd t.o the defendants to 
file written statement initially before closing their right to file 
written statement, yet the trial court instead of closing their right 
.to file written statement should have granted some time to the 
476 
.• 
SIDDALINGAYYA v. GURULINGAPPA & ORS. 
477 
defendants subject t.o payment of reasonable amount of cost to A 
the plaintiff to compensate the inconvenience caused to the 
-plaintiff. The High· Court was, therefore, right in imposing a cost 
of Rs.11,250/- on the defendants to be paid to the plaintiff as a 
pre-condition to file the written statement within the extended 
time granted by the High Court. (Para 15)(479-G-H; 480-A-B] 
8 
1.3 The approach of the High Court, which resulted in 
remand of the case to the trial court for deciding the suit on merits 
after affording full opportunity to the defendants to contest the 
case and, at the same time, making it obligatory to pay cost of 
Rs.11,250/- to the plaintiff was, in tune with the observations in 
*Sangram Sing/r's case and did substantial justice to both the C 
parties. The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High 
Court is concurred. [Paras 18, 19J[480-E-G) 
*Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah & Anr. AIR 
1955 SC 425 : (1955) SCR 1 - relied on. 
[1955) SCR 1 
Case Law Reference 
relied on 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 868 of 
2011. 
D 
E 
From the Judgmentand Order dated 24.06.2005 of the High Court 
ofKarnataka at Bangalore in RSA No. 220 of 2003. 
Rajesh Mahale, Adv. for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed by the 
F 
plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 24.06.2005 passed 
by the High Court ofKarnataka at Bangalore in RSA No.220 of2003 
whereby the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by the 
·. 
. 
I 
respondents herein and while setting aside the judgment/decree of the 
two Courts below remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the 
G 
civil suit afresh on merits after affording an opportunity to the 
respondents( defendants) to file written statement. 
2. The Controversy involved in the appeal lies in a narrow compass. 
Few facts set out hereinbelow would make the controversy clear. 
H 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
3. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the 
defendants in the suit out of which th is appeal arises. 
4. The appellant filed a civil suit being 0.S. 286 of l 993 against 
the respondents (defendants) in the Court ofMunsiff- Indi (Bijapur) for 
recovery of Rs.45,000/- by way of damages. According to the appellant, 
B the respondents illegally demolished his 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.