This Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application to amend the plaint description. The Court held that the petitioner has a deferred alternate remedy to challenge the order as a ground in appeal if it works against their interest.
The writ petition is disposed of keeping open all contentions of the parties.
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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.12729 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BOTH PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO.189, DEVEGOWDANAGAR, THATTEKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT – 573 201.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
THE ALL RESPONDENTS ARE R/O M. HOSAKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT – 573 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN B, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1, R2, R3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESETED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUSAH THE ANNX-E THAT THE ORDER DTD 12.12.2017 ON I.A.NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN O.S.NO.378/2014, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC BY THE PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a partition & mandatory injunction suit in O.S.No.378/2014 are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 12.12.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan having rejected their application in I.A.No.10 filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908, has declined leave to amend the description of the suit property in the plaint. After service of notice, the respondent-defendants having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order.
3
and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the Court below since the petitioners have a deferred alternate remedy in the sense that they can make the impugned order one of the grounds for laying a challenge to the judgment & decree if & when made adverse to their interest as provided u/o XLIII Rule 1A r/w Section 105 of the amended code.
Writ petition is disposed off, keeping open all
contentions of the parties, as above.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with the order rejecting an application to amend the description of the suit property.
Whether the aggrieved parties can challenge such an order through an alternative remedy.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sushma H.T.
Sunil Kumar H.T.
Rangaswamy
Malligamma
Chandregowda
Hemantha
Krishna S. Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
