SIDDALINGAYYA versus GURI. LINGAPPA & ORS.
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 476, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
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 construction and thereby caused 
monetary loss and injury to him and hence the suit to recover the monetary 
loss suffered by him. 
c 
D 
E 
5. The respondents entered appearance but failed to file their 
written statement despite time granted by the Court. 
6. The Trial Court, however. declined to grant further time to file 
written statement to the respondents though asked for and accordingly 
proceeded to record evidence of the appellant (plaintiff) and by judgment/ 
decree dated 24.02.1997, decreed the suit of the appellant(plaintiff) for 
Rs.45,000/- against the respondents( defendants). 
7. The defendants, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal before the 
Principal Civil Judge at Bijapur being R.A. No. I 03of1997. By judgment 
dated 04.12.2002. the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed 
the judgment/decree of the Trial Court. Felt aggrieved, the defendants 
filed second appeal being R.S.A. No.220 of2003 before the High Court. 
8. By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the second 
appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree of
the two Courts 
below remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit 
afresh on merits after affording an opportunity to the respondents 
(defendants) to file written statement. 
F 
9. It was held that the Trial Court did not grant sufficient opportunity 
to the respondents to file written statement, due to which they had to 
suffer the decree without any contest causing prejudice in defending the 
suit. The High Court, however, imposed a cost of Rs.11,250/- on the 
defendants to be paid to the plaintiff as a pre-condition for filing the 
G written statement within the extended time granted. 
H 
10. It is against this order of the High Court, the plaintiff has felt 
aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 
11. Mr. Rajesh Mahale. learned counsel forthe appellant (plaintiff). 
None appeared for the respondents though served.
SIDDALINGAYYA v. GURULINGAPPA & ORS. 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
479 
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on 
A 
perusal of the record of the case, we are not inclined to inte1fere in the 
remand order oftheHigh Court impugned in this appeal. 
13. This case reminds us of the apt observations ofa great Judge 
of this Court (Vivian Bose, J.). His Lordship, speaking for the Bench, in 
his inimitable style of writing said in Sangram Singh vs. Election 
B 
Tribunal Kotah & Anr. (AIR 1955 SC 425) as under: 
"A Code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is 
procedure something designed -to facilitate justice and 
further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and 
pe!lalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too c 
technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for 
reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be 
guarded against (provided always that justice is done to 
both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance 
of justice be used to frustrate it. Our laws of procedure are 
grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires 
that men shou~d not be condemned unheard, that decisions 
should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings 
that affect their lives and property should not continue in 
their absence and that they should not continue in their 
absence and that they should not be precluded from 
participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions 
and where they are
clearly defined they must be given effect 
to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our 
laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is 
reasonably possible, in the light of that principle." 
14. Keeping the aforementioned observations in mind and 
examining the facts of the case at hand, we are of the considered opinion 
that 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 
D 
E 
F 
written statement to enable them to contest the suit on merits. 
G 
" 
-
15. It is true that the time was granted to the defendants to file 
written statement initially before closing their right to file written 
statement, yet in our view, the Trial Court instead of closing their right to 
file written statement should have granted some time to the defendants 
H
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A subject to payment of reasonable amount of cost to the plaintiff to 
compensate the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff. The High Court 
was, therefore, right in imposing a cost ofRs.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. 
B 
16. In our view, here comes the application of observations of 
Vivian Bose J. when His Lordship said ''Too technical a construction 
of a section that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of 
interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always 
that justice is done to both side.1) lest the very means designed for 
the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Our laws of 
C procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice, which 
requires that men should not be condemned unheard. that decision 
should not be reached behind their back, that proceedings that affect 
their lives and property should not continue in their absence and 
D 
E 
F 
that they should not be precluded from participating in them." 
17. Having observed this, His Lordship cautioned ''of course there 
must be exceptions too and where they are clearly defined they must 
be given effect to" and finally His Lordship concluded observing "But 
taken by and large, and subject ·to that proviso, our laws of 
procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, 
in the light of
that principle." 
18. 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 ofRs.11,250/-to the plaintiff was, 
in our view, in tune with the aforementioned observations and did 
substantial justice to both the parties. 
19. In view of foregoing discussion, we concur with the reasoning 
and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and find 'no merit in the 
appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 
G 
20. We, however, find that none appeared for the respondents 
H 
(defendants) in this appeal though served. The Trial Court will now take 
up the suit to its file and will issue notice of suit proceedings to the 
respondents/defendants for their appearance in the suit. 
\
SIDDALINGAYYA v. GURULINGAPPA & ORS. 
[ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
481 
21. On their entering appearance pursuant to service offresh A 
notice, the Trial Court will grant them some time to deposit the cost 
amount fixed by the High Court and also to file their written statement. 
22. Failure to deposit the cost within the time fixed so also the 
written statement WOt;Jd result in revival of the decree passed by the 
Trial Court agai~st the defendants. 
B 
23. In the event of defendants depositing the cost and filing written 
statement as directed, the Trial Court will frame issues and allow the 
parties to adduce their evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, who 
were already examined and will also allow them to adduce additional 
evidence both oral and documentary. 
C 
24. Let the trial in the suit be over within six months from the date 
of appearance of the parties. The record of the case be sent back 
forthwith to the Trial Court, if requisitioned here. 
25. The appellant (plaintift) to appear before the Trial Court on 
3. I 0.2017 with the copy of this order to enable the Trial Court to proceed D 
in the trial of the suit, as directed above. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal dismissed.