Dismissed

The Karnataka Power v. Sri Garudaiah

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2014WP/4574/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to allow an amendment to defendants' pleadings. The Court held that the Trial Court's view that the amendment was an afterthought did not cause legal prejudice to the petitioner as the core defense regarding title and composite development was already available.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to allow amendment of pleadings is rejected.

The Karnataka Power Vs Sri Garudaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

�

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4574 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Shakti Bhavan Race Course Road Bangalore – 560 001 Rep. by its Managing Director … Petitioner

¶8

(By Shri Shrikara P.K., Advocate)

¶9

And:

¶10

Shri Garudaiah S/o late Rangaiah Age: 79 years

¶11

Shri Rangaswamy S/o late Rangaiah

¶12

Age: 70 years

¶13

�

¶14

Shri Krishnappa S/o late Rangaiah Age: 65 years

¶15

Shri Papanna S/o late Rangaiah Age: 55 years

¶16

Shri Lakshmaiah S/o late Rangaiah Age: 50 years

¶17

Smt.Puttamma W/o late Nagaraj Age: 40 yaers

¶18

R1 to R6 are r/a Rangegowdanadoddi Village Bidadi Hobli Ramanagara Taluk and Dist. Ramanagara – 571 511

¶19

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board 3^rd Floor, Kinny Building Gandhinagar Bangalore – 560 001 Rep. by its Managing Director … Respondents

¶20

(Shri Ramananda, Advocate for R1 to R6 Notice to R7 is dispensed with v/o dt. 5.2.2014)

¶21

¶22

�

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.1.2014 passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara on IA filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC (Ann-A) by allowing this writ petition and etc.

¶24

This Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner is said to be defendant No.2. The suit is for

¶28

declaration that there has been no acquisition of the respondents’ land though other items of the property were the subject matter of the acquisition, for the benefit of the present petitioner and therefore, has sought a declaration that the occupation of 2 acres and 9 guntas of land was illegal and same has been encompassed by a compound wall by the present petitioner and hence, sought for

¶29

declaration of title, possession and mandatory injunction. The present petitioner has contested the suit by filing a detailed written

¶30

�

¶31

statement. However, at the stage of the plaintiffs’ evidence, it was realized that there were two aspects that requires to be highlighted. Firstly, the plaintiff did not possess any title deed in respect of the property that was claimed. Secondly, the petitioner having developed the land for the purpose of installing its power station, has invested huge amounts of money, put up civil works and machinery have been installed. Therefore, the question of granting any relief as prayed for by the petitioner is rendered impossible since there has been composite development of the land which cannot now be separated, as claimed by the defendants and it is for a public purpose. The Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that it is an after thought and belated and it would change the nature of defence taken by the defendants which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that

¶33

the reasoning of the Trial Court could hardly be sustained as the

¶34

�

¶35

petitioner is only seeking to reinforce the pleadings with the specific averments and there is no alteration of the defence as sought to be opined by the Trial Court and it does not change the defence nor would it require the plaintiff to take any corrective steps insofar as the plaintiffs’ pleadings are concerned.

¶36

Though the learned counsel may be right in his contention

¶37

that the pleadings perhaps were not of a nature which would alter the defence taken by the petitioner, in that, the basic defence as to the plaintiffs being without title to the property, has been asserted. Elaboration or emphasis being laid on the said contention, was not essential and therefore, the amendment of pleadings was not necessary at the stage where trial had commenced. Secondly, insofar as the contention that the petitioner has invested money and has put up civil works and installed machinery, it is a composite development and is no longer capable of being segregated and is also a contention which is always available to the defendants by

¶38

�

¶39

way of evidence in support of his case of having taken the possession and having utilized the land over time. The activity within the compound wall is within the knowledge of the petitioner which may be enlarged at the time of evidence, which would include the development that has taken place in the property over a period of time and that cannot be shut out by the Trial Court and therefore, the rejection of the application by the Trial Court does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is rejected.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

The Karnataka Power v. Sri Garudaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Power v. Sri Garudaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T R Bheemasena Rao Dead by Lrs Vs Fayaz Ahmed Khan

Sri Goriyappa Vs Smt Akkayyamma

K.G. Jacob Vs M.V. Vijendra

Shivanna Vs Manjunath

Smt R Sharadamma Vs Smt Mangala Gowramma

Sri B N Ashwathappa Vs Chikkanarayanappa