Dismissed

Maruti Ishwar Kondli v. the Chief Officer

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2013WP/68418/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to amend a plaint from seeking injunction to damages following dispossession. The Court held the amendment was not necessary for adjudication but allowed withdrawal of the suit for a fresh one.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; observation made that petitioners can withdraw injunction suit and file fresh suit for damages.

Maruti Ishwar Kondli Vs the Chief Officer — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 68418 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Shri Maruti Ishwar Kondli, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o Kondli village in Siddapur Taluka, Dist: Uttara Kannada.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

(By Sri Sanjay S. Katageri, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The Chief Officer, Pattan Panchayath, Siddapur Taluka, Dist: Uttara Kannada.

¶14

The President, Pattan Panchayat, Siddapur Taluka, Dist: Uttara Kannada.

¶15

…Respondents

¶16

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 21.05.2012 on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.67/2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Siddapur, as per Annexure-E, etc.

¶17

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 21.05.2012 (Annexure-E) passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Siddapur on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.67/2009.

¶21

The suit is filed by the petitioners against the respondents seeking the relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners were dispossessed by the respondents following the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. Admittedly, the dispossession took place on 29^th and 30^th September 2010. In view of the subsequent event, the petitioners sought the amendment of the prayer for replacing the prayer for injunction by the prayer for the damages. The Trial Court has rejected the said application.

¶22

Sri Sanjay S. Katageri, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as the dispossession has taken place during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners

¶23

¶24

are entitled to amend the plaint and prosecute their case against the respondents. He submits that the dismissal of the petitioners’ I.A.No.5 would only lead to the multiplicity of the proceedings.

¶25

My perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Trial Court has formed the view that by the proposed amendment a new case is sought to be introduced. It has rightly held that the proposed amendment is not necessary for the adjudication of the matter in dispute. The Trial Court cannot be held to be at fault for turning down the petitioners’ I.A. for amendment.

¶26

This petition is dismissed with the observation that it is open to the petitioners to withdraw the injunction suit and file a fresh suit for damages, recovery of possession, etc. No order as to costs.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

mkc

Maruti Ishwar Kondli v. the Chief Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Ishwar Kondli v. the Chief Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pundalik S/O. Gundurao Ghatage, Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Basheerkhan S/O Akbar Khan Mulla Vs the Tahasildar, Yelburga

Gundu S/O Payanna Patil, Vs the Competent Authority, the Land Acquisition

Basappa Mallappa Shirur Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Laxman Vittal Sanadi Vs State of Karnataka

Babu Ganapati Naik Vs the Chief Officer