Disposed

Venkappa S/O. Sateppa Biradar Patil v. Sattewwa W/O. Hanmant @ Hanmantgouda Sanagoudar

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2019WP/105914/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application for amendment of a written statement. The Court found no ground for interference as the plaintiff was estopped regarding title acquisition already narrated in the plaint, noting that an opportunity to produce additional documents was separately granted via a different application.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of; no interference with the Trial Court's order is granted.

Venkappa S/O. Sateppa Biradar Patil Vs Sattewwa W/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.105914/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

VENKAPPA S/O. SATEPPA BIRADAR PATIL AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALGALI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. N.L.BATAKURKI, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SATTEWWA W/O. HANMANT @ HANMANTGOUDA SANAGOUDAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALGALI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶13

... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.III PASSED IN O.S.NO.219/2014 DATED 16.08.2018 BY THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MUDHOL AT VIDE ANNEXURE-"E" AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-"C" MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol passed on I.A. No.3 preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 which came to be rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 16.08.2018.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has preferred O.S. No.219/2014 and in the said suit, the petitioner – defendant filed I.A. No.3 under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking for amendment of the written statement on the premise that he desires to incorporate certain pleadings in the written statement and narrate regarding the acquisition of title pertaining to the suit schedule property. The petitioner had also preferred one more interlocutory application I.A. No.4 under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to produce additional documents.

¶20

¶21

The Trial Court after detailed consideration of the applications has found that the proposed narrative with regard to acquisition of title has already been narrated in the plaint and that the plaintiff is estopped from going behind the narration or the plaint pleadings. In that view of the matter, the proposed amendment sought for is superfluous. The reasoning by the Trial Court is not controverted.

¶22

That apart, it is also seen that by its common order has been pleased to allow I.A. No.4. If the petitioner desires to place on record any material with regard to acquisition of title, an opportunity is provided by the Trial Court by allowing I.A. No.4.

¶23

In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court wile disposing of I.A. No.3. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶24

Sd/JUDGE

¶25

Rsh

Venkappa S/O. Sateppa Biradar Patil v. Sattewwa W/O. Hanmant @ Hanmantgouda Sanagoudar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkappa S/O. Sateppa Biradar Patil v. Sattewwa W/O. Hanmant @ Hanmantgouda Sanagoudar

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

Sri.Duragappa S/O Kolgappa Kukanoor Vs Smt.Jayamma W/O Durgappa Kukanoor

Prakash H. Hulyal S/O Hullappa P Hulyal Vs Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation

Abdulrasheed S/O Allabax Bawa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Ashfak Shafi Ahamed Vs Mohammed Sab Chand Sab Mangaluru

Venkappa S/O. Veerabhadrappa Ugarkhod Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shri. Venakanagouda S/O. Yallapagouda Vs Nethajigouda S/O Tammanagouda Patil