Shivanna v. Manjunath
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petitions challenging the rejection of an amendment application in a partition suit. The court held the trial court erred in rejecting the application, allowing petitioners to emphasize existing record without additional evidence.
What did the court decide?
The amendment application in O.S.No.98/2005 was allowed to be addressed using material already on record, and the trial court's order rejecting the amendment was quashed.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.155 AND 156 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
- Shivanna,
- Son of Kariyappa, Aged about 77 years, Agriculturist,
- Neelakantaiah, Son of Kariappa, Aged about 75 years, Agriculturist,
Both are resident of Motihally Village, Huliyar Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 218.
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri. B. Rudragowda, Advocate)
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a late amendment application in a partition suit should be allowed to correct pleadings regarding property claims after final arguments began.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application as belated and prejudicial to the plaintiffs.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Shivanna
- petitioner
Neelakantaiah
- respondent
Manjunath
- respondent
S. Maruthi
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/155/2014
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court