Dismissed

Basavraj S/O. Mallikarjun Motagi v. Sanjay Subash Motagi

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2017WP/100025/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of an amendment application to the written statement. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an inadvertence in pleadings after trial completion is not valid ground for reopening the case.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with no warrant for interference with the trial court's order rejecting the amendment application.

Basavraj S/O. Mallikarjun Motagi Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF MARCH 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

Writ Petition No.100025 of 2014 (GM-CPC)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Basavraj S/o. Mallikarjun Motagi, Age: 58 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of Burud Galli, Athani, District: Belgaum. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Shri Naveen R Melinamani, Advocate for Shri Jagadish Patil)

¶10

And:

¶11

Shri. Sanjay Subash Motagi, Age: 44 years, Occupation: Business, Burud Galli, Athani, District: Belgaum.

¶12

Shri. Satish Subash Motagi, Age: 42 years, Occupation: Service, Burud Galli, Athani, District: Belgaum.

¶13

Smt. Lalitha W/o Subash Mallikarjun Motagi, Age: 67 years, Occupation: Household, Burud Galli, Athani, District: Belgaum.

¶14

Shri. Umapati Mallikarjun Motagi, Age: 64 years, Occupation: Business, Burud Galli, Athani, District: Belgaum.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

Virupaksha Mallikarjun Motagi, Age: 63 years, Occupation: Service, Resident of Shahu Nagar, Sy. No. 51/3B, Plot No.11, Near Rikshaw Stand, Belgaum.

¶17

Siddharam Mallikarjun Motagi Age: 55 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of Burud Galli, Athani, District: Belgaum.

¶18

Smt. Mala W/o Basavaraj Mallikarjun Motagi, Age: 52 years, Occupation: Household Work, Resident of Burud Galli, Athani,

¶19

District: Belgaum.

¶20

Smt. Nagaratna W/o Siddharam Mallikarjun Motagi, Age: 39 years, Occupation Household Work, Resident of Burud Galli, Athani,

¶21

District: Belgaum.

¶22

Smt. Mahananda W/o Rachappa Gangavati, Age: 69 years, Occupation: Household Work, Resident of Basavprabhu Nilaya, Navalli Plot, 101, Akshaya Park, Priyadarshani Colony, Gokul Road, Hubli.

¶23

Smt. Nilambika M Parashetti, Age: 62 years, Occupation: Household Work, Resident of Burud Galli, Athani,

¶24

District: Belgaum.

¶25

… Respondents

¶26

(By Shri M.H.Patil, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. Respondents No.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are served. Respondent No.1 service held sufficient vide order dated 14.06.2016)

¶27

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 17.12.2013

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

on I.A.No.VII which is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.289/2010 pending on the Preliminary Civil Judge (Senior Division) Athani, vide Annexure-F and allow the I.A.No.VII.

¶30

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the court made the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

The petitioner was the defendant and it was noticed by him, at the fag end of the trial, that a date was inadvertently excluded from the pleadings and that it was necessary for him to produce the document to establish that he had borrowed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on a particular date which was crucial to his defence. It is in this background that an application seeking amendment of the written statement was filed. The same has been rejected as it was belated and that the trial had already been completed.

¶34

In view of the legal position that is laid down and since the prayer was not in respect of any subsequent event which would necessarily have required the court to consider the

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

application, the inadvertence pleaded would not be a ground to reopen the case merely to permit the petitioner to supplement his pleadings. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application and there is no warrant for interference.

¶37

The petition is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

kmv

Basavraj S/O. Mallikarjun Motagi v. Sanjay Subash Motagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavraj S/O. Mallikarjun Motagi v. Sanjay Subash Motagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Intelligence Officer Vs P Balakrishnan @ Krishna @ Balan @ Rajan

Joseph Chacko Vs State of Karnataka

Joseph Chacko Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashikala W/O. Ganapati Bhat Vs Annayya Subray Bhat

Shivappa Parsa Gulagavi Vs Maruti Sabu Gulagavi

Siddappa Vs Siddappa