Partly allowed

Shankar Dolla Gunagi v. Mangala Ekanath Gunagi

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021WP/103479/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka partially allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a trial court order rejecting an amendment application. The court held that introducing a counter claim after the prescribed period under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC was impermissible and upheld its rejection. However, the court allowed the amendment to incorporate additional facts in an existing paragraph as it did not change t

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed; impugned order rejecting amendment of paragraph 4(A) set aside; application for 4(B) and counter claim prayer dismissed; petitioner directed to amend within four weeks.

Shankar Dolla Gunagi Vs Mangala Ekanath Gunagi — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No. 103479/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHANKAR DOLLA GUNAGI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC.: FORESTOR, R/O: KHB COLONY, TQ: HABBUWADA, DIST: KARWAR.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MANGALA EKANATH GUNAGI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: HOUSE NO. 1817/B, KHB COLONY, TQ: HABBUWADA, DIST: KARWAR.

¶13

RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI PRUTHVI K.S. ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, KARWAR, IN O.S. NO. 218/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-E & ETC.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition is directed against the impugned

¶20

order dated 03.12.2018 passed on the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement in O.S. No. 218/2015 on the file of

¶21

the Prl. Civil Judge (II Court), Karwar, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record including the impugned order.

¶23

The material on record indicates that in the aforesaid suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitionerdefendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule immovable property, the petitioner filed his written statement and contested the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking amendment of the written statement by

¶24

¶25

incorporating paragraphs No.4(A) and 4(B) and by introducing a prayer at paragraph No. 6 for injunction by way of counter claim. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ petition.

¶26

The material on record indicates that the trial Court has proceeded to reject the said application on the sole ground that seeking amendment of the written statement by introducing a counter claim after the prescribed period is not permissible in law under Order VIII Rule 6A and consequently the application filed by the petitioner seeking to introduce a counter claim was not maintainable. The said finding of the trial Court with regard to the embargo put upon the petitioner-defendant to seek amendment by introducing a counter claim by way of paragraph No. 4(B) and prayer column at paragraph No.6 after the prescribed

¶27

¶28

period cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal occasioning failure of justice in view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394. Under these circumstances, the impugned order insofar as it relates to rejecting the amendment in respect of proposed paragraph No. 4(B) and proposed prayer column at paragraph No. 6 of the written statement does not warrant interference by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶29

However, insofar as the proposed amendment by seeking to incorporate paragraph No. 4(A) of the written statement is concerned, a perusal of the proposed amendment will indicate that the petitioner merely seeks to elaborate and amplify certain facts already pleaded in the written statement and consequently it cannot be said that the proposed amendment in anyway changes the nature and character of the suit or its cause nor result in any prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff, if the said request for

¶30

¶31

incorporating paragraph No. 4(A) is allowed and

¶32

consequently the instant application only insofar as it relates to the request of the petitioner to incorporate in paragraph No.4(A) in the written statement deserves to be allowed.

¶33

In the result, I pass the following order.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) Writ Petition is partly allowed;

¶36

ii) Impugned order dated 03.12.2018 only insofar as it relates to rejecting of amendment application in respect of proposed paragraph No. 4(A) of the written statement is hereby set aside and the said application stands allowed to the said extent;

¶37

iii) The impugned order insofar as it relates to 4(B) and prayer column at paragraph No. 6 of the proposed amendment is not interfered with in the present writ petition;

¶38

iv) Petitioner is directed to carry out amendment and file amended written statement within a period of

¶39

¶40

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶41

v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondentplaintiff to file rejoinder to the amended written statement;

¶42

vi) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶43

SD JUDGE

¶44

bvv

Shankar Dolla Gunagi v. Mangala Ekanath Gunagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Dolla Gunagi v. Mangala Ekanath Gunagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balasaheb S/O. Bharmagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.Ishwaragouda M. Patil Vs the Registrar

Shidramappa S/O Sangappa Anneppanavar Vs the General Manager

Shri. Somappa S/O Shivappa Hosamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanthappa S/O.Ningappa Talawar @ Walikar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rayappa S/O Mallappap Heggannavar Vs Kumar. Amit S/O Rayappa Heggannavar