Writ petition challenging dismissal of application for amendment of written statement in a suit for ejectment. Court dismissed petition noting amendment would serve no purpose as lease deed not in possession.
Writ petition dismissed 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.35374 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Kshatriya Maratha Parishath Credit Co-operative Society Limited, No.16/A, Thimmaiah Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore – 560 052. Represented by it’s President and Officer Bearers/Authorized Representative/Administrators.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. Viswanath Sabarad, Advocate)
AND:
M/s. Karnataka Kshatriya Maratha Parishath (R), office at No.16/A, Millers Tank Bund Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore – 560 052. Represented by it’s President Sri. V.A.Rangoji Rao Sathe.
…RESPONDENT
2
(By Shri. V.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for Caveator/ Respondent)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 15.7.2014 passed on IA-3 in O.S.No.988/2012, on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, produced as Annexure-E and etc;
This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
ejectment. The petitioner having filed his written statement, at
the stage of further cross-examination of the plaintiff, has realized that there were certain averments which were necessary
to be made in the written statement with reference to a lease deed and therefore, has sought to incorporate as Paragraph 7(a) and 7(b) in the written statement with reference to the said lease
deed in order to substantiate his possession and to assert that no
suit for ejectment could be filed on that basis.
3
admit that the lease deed which is referred to in the proposed amendments is not in his possession nor does he have a copy of the same. However, on information received, the pleadings are sought to be incorporated. Therefore, it would follow that even if these amendments were incorporated in the written statement, it would serve no purpose as the same could not be established with reference to any documents. However this circumstance, the petitioner could very well be elicited from the witness whom he is about to cross-examine. Therefore, no prejudice is caused by the court below having dismissed the application which indeed was not maintainable, given the above circumstance. The petition is hence dismissed without prejudice to the case of the petitioner.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application to amend pleadings regarding a lease deed which is not in possession should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karnataka Kshatriya Maratha Parishath Credit Co-operative Society Limited
M/s. Karnataka Kshatriya Maratha Parishath (R)
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
