(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ in the Nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dtd 23- 02-2026 on I.A No.4 filed u/O 8 Rule-10 r/W Section 151 of Cpc in O.S No.204/2024 on the file of Court of Prl.Civil Judge and Jmfc, Badami sitting at Guledagudda vide Annexure-D and consequently allow the I.A No.4 dtd 03-02- 2026 and permit the defendant to file his written statement by setting aside the order of the Trial Court taking the written statement of defendant as not filed and permit the defendant to lead his evidence and cross examine the plaintiff/his side of witnesses, in the interest of justice and equity & etc.,)

Oral Order

1. This petition is by the defendant assailing the order of the learned Judge, who has rejected the application filed in I.A.No.4 seeking leave to a file written statement applying Karnataka Amendment Act, 2024. The said order is impugned in the captioned petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.204 of 2024. The petitioner, who is the defendant, is aggrieved by rejection of application filed in I.A.No.4 seeking permission to file the written statement. The learned Judge has rejected the application applying the Karnataka Amendment Act. This Court in a reported judgment in W.P.No.8032/2026 C/w W.P.No.9372/2026 [disposed of on 28.07.2026], has read down the third proviso to Order V; third proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 and first proviso to Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to extract the operative portion of the reported judgment rendered by this Court (supra), which reads as under;

          "(i) The writ petitions are allowed in part.

          (ii) The third proviso inserted to Order V Rule 1, third proviso inserted to Rule 1 of Order VIII and proviso to Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure by Section 4 of the Karnataka Amendment Act, 2024 is read down in the manner indicated in paragraphs 131, 132, 157 and 158 of this judgment.

          (iii) Therefore the constitutional challenge to Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 is not accepted.

          (iv) The expressions "the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement" and "the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record" shall not be construed as completely excluding the judicial discretion of the Civil Court in exceptionally rare cases where refusal would result in grave miscarriage of justice.

          (v) It is declared that Section 158-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 shall be construed harmoniously with the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure and shall not be interpreted as overriding or abrogating the statutory rule-making powers of the High Court preserved under Sections 122 to 127 of the Code, the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution, or the binding law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141. To the aforesaid extent, Section 158-A stands read down.

          (vi) The jurisdiction preserved by this judgment to receive a written statement beyond the prescribed period shall be exercised by all Civil Courts in the State only in strict adherence to the principles, limitations and illustrative guidelines contained in paragraph 162 of this judgment, and only upon recording reasons demonstrating the existence of exceptional and compelling circumstances.

          (vii) It is further declared that the provisions introduced by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 shall operate prospectively and shall apply only to suits instituted on or after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. Suits instituted prior thereto shall continue to be governed by the unamended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, in terms of the law declared by this Court in Smt. T.Gayathri and Another v. Smt. Prabhajit Dhariwal (W.P. No.8090 of 2026)."

          (Emphasis Supplied)

4. In view of the law laid down by this Court in a reported judgment (supra), this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be remitted back to the trial Court to meticulously follow the directions issued by this Court, more particularly, to have first ascertained whether the suit is filed pre-amendment. If the suit is filed pre-amendment, then the law then existing as per the dictum rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India1 and the clarification made by this Court in Smt. T.Gayathri and Another v. Smt. Prabhajit Dhariwal (W.P. No.8090 of 2026), the permission to file written statement shall be considered as per the unamended provisions. In the event suit is filed post amendment, in terms of directions issued by the Court in the reported judgment, fresh orders shall be passed after hearing both sides.

5. In the light of directions issued by this Court, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:

ORDER

          i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part.

          ii. Impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.204 of 2024 filed (2005) 6 SCC 344 under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami is hereby quashed and set-aside.

          iii. The learned Judge shall rehear the application seeking permission to file written statement adverting to the directions issued by this Court, which is extracted supra.

          iv. All contentions are kept open.