Petitioners approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the trial court's rejection of applications to amend pleadings and recall witnesses in a suit for possession and mesne profits.
The writ petitions were disposed of without prejudice to the case of the petitioner.
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.
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 NOS. 30358-30359 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)
Between:
Sri. Hanumanthappa S/o. Rangappa Aged about 63 years Proprietor Sri. Krishna Jewellars Merchants Bank Road Corner Near Santhe Bagilu Chitradurga Town – 577501 Chitradurga District
R/o. 4th Block Behind Azad Floor Mill Chitradurga Town and District - 577501 …Petitioner (By Sri. K. Ramabhat, Advocate)
And:
Smt. K. Pushpa, W/o. Rangaswamy Aged about 43 years R/o. 2nd Block, Assar Mohalla Chitradurga Town – 577501 Chitradurga District
... Respondent
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct and thereby set aside the impugned order dated 10/6/2014 on I.A.VI and VII in O.S.No.744/11 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, Chitradurga as per Annexure-A; and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
for possession and mesne profits. During the course of the proceedings, at the time of evidence of the plaintiff, the petitioner had filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement. The same having been allowed and by virtue of the additional pleadings, the petitioner thought it fit to recall PW-1 and PW-2, who had been examined in the meanwhile, for further cross-examination. The said applications having been rejected, the petitioner is before this court.
regarding aspects of payment of additional rent to the erstwhile owner, as well as clauses in the lease deed permitting extension
of the lease on payment of additional rent, so on and so forth. The court below has rejected the same. Since the petitioner is yet to tender evidence on his own behalf, it is open for him to support additional pleadings. The rejection of the applications by the court below, cannot be said to be illegal or out of hand. Accordingly the petitions are disposed of, without prejudice to the case of the petitioner.
Sd/JUDGE
Rd/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of applications for amendment of written statement and recall of witnesses by the trial court was illegal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Hanumanthappa S/o. Rangappa
Smt. K. Pushpa
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
