This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an impugned order that rejected a prayer for further clarification of pleadings on non-joinder. The petitioner was not prejudiced by the rejection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 10259 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
T. Nagaraj, Son of Late K. Thulajappa, Aged about 83 years, Occupation: Retired from Government Service, resident of No.499, 8th Main Road, II Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. Nandish Patil , Advocate)
AND:
Sri. G.M.Nagesh Babu, Son of Late G.M.Rajashekariah, Aged about 46 years, No.1037, 1st Main Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010.
…RESPONDENT
2
(By Shri. K.B.Thippeswamy, Advocate)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Challakere, in O.S.No.05/2013 on I.A.No.15 vide Annexure-E.
This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner was the defendant before the Trial Court. The petitioner has filed his written statement in a suit for declaration and injunction. However, there were minor pleadings, which required to be incorporated to further clarify
the pleadings already taken in support of his case, namely, that the suit is bad for non-joinder in the face of one Thippeswamy and his daughter Devika not being made parties to the suit and further that no title passed in favour of Rajashekarappa in the absence of Thippeswamy and Devika. These pleadings are clarificatory in nature and the Trial Court could have rejected
3
the application holding that there was no need for such further clarification as the basic pleading that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of parties was also present. However, the court has chosen to reject the application on the ground that the proceedings having reached the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff’s evidence, it would lead to cumbersome procedure of framing fresh issues and permitting the plaintiff to file objections etc., and has negated the applications. The petitioner however, would not be prejudiced by such rejection since it is also shown from the record that there is already a basic pleading that the suit is bad for non-joinder. In which event, the defendant is not precluded from leading evidence to substantiate the pleading and to demonstrate his case as to how the suit is bad for non-joinder. The petitioner shall not be precluded from leading such evidence.
4
With that observation, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
T. Nagaraj
Sri. G.M. Nagesh Babu
AND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
