Karnataka HC Seeks State's Response To Plea Challenging 120-Day Bar On Filing Written Statement Under State CPC Amendment

The Karnataka High Court sought the state's objections to a challenge against the constitutional validity of the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, brought forth by the state-specific Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024.

The single-judge bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi at Dharwad noted that the stringent 120-day cap on filing the written statement in a civil suit requires careful consideration. The court, accordingly, granted the Government Advocate two weeks to file a statement of objections.

The petitioners have challenged Section 4 of the Karnataka Amendment, which bars a defendant from filing a written statement after the lapse of 120 days from the date of service of summons. The new proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC explicitly prevents the defendant from filing the written statement after 120 days, irrespective of any extenuating circumstances.

For the petitioners, Advocate Shivaraj S. Balloli filed the writ petition challenging the abrogation of the court's discretion to file a written statement beyond the statutory period. The new amendment has forced the opposing parties in a suit to strictly adhere to the timeline of 120 days, after which they would forfeit their right to file the written statement.

Earlier, the 120-day cap for filing a written statement was only strictly observed in commercial disputes.

The petitioners contend before the court that a mechanised model of forfeiting the right to defend a civil suit after 120 days, enforcing a blanket disregard for exceptions on merit, is wholly unconstitutional. The underlying civil dispute stemmed from an allegation of land encroachment against the petitioners in Belagavi District.

To strike down Section 4 of the amendment as ultra vires, the petitioners highlight their right to defend a case as their fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. Taking away the court's discretion to extend the time frame beyond 120 days can't be deemed as fair, just and reasonable 'procedure established by law' according to the litigants before the single judge bench. Further, they have relied upon the apex court decision in Kailash v. Nanku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 to make it clear that no party can be denied the opportunity of being heard in an adversarial system of law.

“In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice”, the apex court had held in Kailash v. Nanku.

The petitioners reiterated that the express bar on inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC to extend the timeline beyond 120 days must be struck down since Section 4 of the state amendment is wholly unconstitutional.

A comparison between the plaintiff's timeframe to institute a civil suit when a cause of action arises, read with the limitation act, and the current amendment confining the time for defendant's objections, reveals that the latter is discriminatory, said the petitioner.

Background

The first petitioner claims that the respondents' ancestral property has been bifurcated among their family members. Later, the first petitioner purchased parcels of land originally owned by other members of the family. The plots were then legally converted for non-agricultural purposes and sold to multiple individuals, including the second petitioner.

Though the land revenue authorities closed the grievance raised by the respondent about the first petitioner encroaching upon his adjacent plot, the respondent instituted a civil suit at Hukkeri, the petitioner added in the writ admitted by the high court.

In February 2026, the trial court dismissed the interim application to allow the filing of a written statement beyond 120 days, in light of the recent state amendment to CPC. Consequently, the petitioners contend before the high court that rejection of their application seeking permission to file written statement infringes upon Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner's version states that they were unable to file the written statement since the interim applications filed by the respondent for temporary injunction and appointment of an advocate commissioner were posted for orders continuously, and then adjourned. Since the file was kept in the chambers of the presiding judge, they sought an exception before the trial court, which was rejected due to the new rule.

Case Title: Rohit S/o Padmanabh Chougala & Anr. v. Subhash S/o Bhupal Adike & Anr.

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 101961 of 2026 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.