Allowed

Smt.Geetha Chandrashekar v. Sri.Kantilal B Jain

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2014HRRP/24/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a rent revision petition to amend pleadings rejected by the trial court. Citing advocate negligence rather than party fault, the court set aside the rejection of amendment under O 6 R 17 CPC and imposed costs.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the application to amend pleadings under O 6 R 17 CPC was set aside, permitting the petitioners to amend pleadings. Costs of Rs.10,000 imposed (Rs.5,000 to respondent's advocate, R

Smt.Geetha Chandrashekar Vs Sri.Kantilal B Jain — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2014

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶5

House Rent Revision Petition 24 / 2014

¶6

Between

¶7

1 Smt Geetha Chandrashekar, 53 yrs

¶8

2 Mrs M C Poornima, 33 yrs

¶9

3 Ms M C Lavanya, 28 yrs

¶10

1-3 are represented by 4 as Special power of attorney holder

¶11

4 Mr Sagar C Makkini, 33 yrs

¶12

1-4 are wife and children of late M C Chandrashekar and are r/o 1068, II Floor, 25^th Main 15^th Main Cross, BSK II Stage Bangalore 70

¶13

Petitioners

¶14

(By Sri Srikanth H, Adv.)

¶15

And

¶16

Sri Kantilal B Jain, 52 yrs S/o Bhawarlal Jain

¶17

R/a # 19/D, 13^th A Main Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore

¶18

Also at: Manoj Bankers Ground Floor, # 71 (Old # 39) 4^th Cross, 14^th Main Dr Shivaram Karanth Road Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore By its Property – Kantilal B Jain

¶19

Respondents

¶20

(By Sri S Gangadhara Aithal, Adv.)

¶21

This Revision Petition is filed under S.46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 praying to set aside the order dated 1.2.2014 in HRC 119/2013 on IA by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.

¶22

This Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the order passed on

¶25

1.2.2014 in HRC 119/2013 rejecting the application filed by them under

¶26

O 6 R 17 r/w S.151, CPC.

¶27

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

¶28

O 6 R 17 of CPC is clear on the aspect that no amendment shall

¶29

be allowed after trial is commenced unless the court comes to the

¶30

¶31

conclusion that in spite of due diligence parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. However, it appears if strict interpretation is made, petitioners would not be entitled for any remedy.

¶32

Be that as it may, the fault of the advocate in not drafting the petition properly ultimately lead to an error in the petition and due diligence cannot be attributed to the party. Rather it is a casual approach by the advocate who has drafted the petition for which the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. With this reasoning, the order passed by the trial court rejecting the IA is set aside permitting the petitioners to amend the pleadings as sought for, by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- out of which, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the advocate who is representing the respondent and Rs.5,000/- to the party.

¶33

Revision petition is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/- Judge

¶35

Smt.Geetha Chandrashekar v. Sri.Kantilal B Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Geetha Chandrashekar v. Sri.Kantilal B Jain

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

Padmavathamma Vs Lokesh

M/S Mahabir Stores Vs Sri v H Samarth Singh S/O Late v Hem Singh

Mr. Anil G Bajaj Vs Mr. Suresh L Raheja

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs D Thimmaiah

Shri Yellappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pushpa Rana Vs the Manager Icici General Insurance Co. Ltd.