Allowed

T C Nagaraja v. P Anjinappa

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2021WP/19196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition praying to quash an order disallowing amendment of a plaint in a declaration suit. The court held the lower judge erred in denying the amend ment while allowing it for the defendant, citing estoppel and the need for flexibility in title disputes. The opposing writ petition challenging the written statement amendment order was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.02.2016 in I.A.No.22 quashed; leave accorded for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

T C Nagaraja Vs P Anjinappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.19196 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.9659 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶9

IN W.P.NO. 19196/2017:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

T C NAGARAJA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MAADIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SIDDESWARA N K, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . P ANJINAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS

¶16

1(A) SMT. VIJAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATEREDDY, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶17

1(B) MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATEREDDY GRANDSON OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶18

1(C) SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATEREDDY GRANDSON OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

RESPONDENT NO.1(A) TO (C) ARE RESIDENT OF MAADIKERI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶21

1(D) SUBBA REDDY HUSBAND OF LATE SAROJAMMA, SON-IN-LAW OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶22

1(E) MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O SUBBA REDDY GRANDSON OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶23

RESPONDENT NO.1(D) TO 1(E) ARE RESIDENT OF NAADAMPALLI VILLAGE, CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶24

1(F) PAAPI REDDY S/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶25

1(G) SMT. AKKALAMMA W/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶26

1(H) CHIKKAPAAPI REDDY S/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶27

1(I) SUDARSHAN REDDY S/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶28

1(J) M.A.ASHOK REDDY S/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶29

1(K) SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, D/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RONUR VILLAGE & POST, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶30

¶31

1(L) SMT. SUMITHRAMMA W/O SUBBAREDDY, D/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶32

RESPONDENTS NO.1(F) TO 1(J) & (I) ARE RESIDENT OF MAADIKERI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V.C.O DATED 6.11.2019)

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE FOR R1(G) TO R1(L); R1(A) TO R1(F) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.02.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI ON I.A.NO.22 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.95/2010 AS PER ANNEX-L BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ALLOW I.A.NO.22.

¶36

IN W.P.NO.9659/2016:

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

T.C. NAGARAJA, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O MAADIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶39

...PETITIONER

¶40

(BY SRI. SIDDESWARA N K, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

1 . P ANJINAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS

¶43

1(A) SMT. VIJAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATEREDDY, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶44

¶45

1(B) MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATEREDDY GRANDSON OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶46

1(C) SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATEREDDY GRANDSON OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶47

RESPONDENT NO.1(A) TO (C) ARE RESIDENT OF MAADIKERI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶48

1(D) SUBBA REDDY HUSBAND OF LATE SAROJAMMA, SON-IN-LAW OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶49

1(E) MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O SUBBA REDDY GRANDSON OF RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶50

RESPONDENT NO.1(D) TO 1(E) ARE RESIDENT OF NAADAMPALLI VILLAGE, CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶51

1(F) PAAPI REDDY S/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶52

1(G) SMT. AKKALAMMA W/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶53

1(H) CHIKKAPAAPI REDDY S/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶54

1(I) SUDARSHAN REDDY S/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶55

¶56

1(J) M.A.ASHOK REDDY S/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶57

1(K) SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, D/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RONUR VILLAGE & POST, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶58

1(L) SMT. SUMITHRAMMA W/O SUBBAREDDY, D/O LATE P ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶59

RESPONDENTS NO.1(F) TO 1(J) & (I) ARE RESIDENT OF MAADIKERI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V.C.O DATED 16.07.2018)

¶60

…RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE FOR R1(G) TO R1(L); R1(A) TO R1(F) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶62

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.02.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI ON I.A.NO.21 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.95/2010 AS PER ANNEX-G AND DISMISS I.A.NO.21.

¶63

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶64

¶65

ORDER

¶66

Petitioner being the plaintiff in a declaration suit in O.S.No.95/2010, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the orders whereby the request for amendment of the Written Statement was allowed and the request for amendment of the plaint, was disallowed; that is how these two Writ Petitions arise.

¶67

After service of notice, the contesting respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the Writ Petitions making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been structured.

¶68

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in W.P.No.19196/2017 and declines indulgence in W.P.No.9659/2016 for the following reasons:

¶69

(a) Admittedly, the declaration suit is of the year 2010; issues having been framed, the trial having been accomplished, the respondent-defendant moved the application seeking amendment of the Written Statement

¶70

¶71

which has been favoured by the learned Judge of the court below vide order dated 6.2.2016 and accordingly, amended Written Statement has also been filed; this triggered the petitioner to seek leave to amend his plaint; however, that has been negatived by the learned Judge vide order dated 25.02.2016; where Written Statement is amended and that necessitates amendment of plaint, the request for leave to amend ordinarily has to be granted subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the parties does not fit; this aspect having not been kept in mind by the learned Judge of the court below, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶72

(b) Since petitioner on the basis of the leave granted

¶73

for amending the Written Statement, has sought for amendment of his plaint, he may not be justified in laying a challenge to the order granting leave to amend the Written Statement; in fact, he has acted on the said order granting leave to amend the Written Statement and therefore, an estopel operates against him from laying a challenge thereto.

¶74

¶75

¶76

order denying leave to amend the plaint i.e., ordinarily, in the suits relating to title dispute, courts need to be little flexible in treating the request for amendment of the pleadings so that a complete adjudication of the lis takes place; it is so notwithstanding the rigor enacted by the Parliament in the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, as has been observed by the Courts time and again; this approach has not been adopted by the learned Judge of the court below.

¶77

(d) Going by the battle lines drawn by the parties by filing their pleadings, no prejudice would be caused to anyone if the amendment sought for by the petitioner is also granted by way of reciprocity since such a leave is already granted to the respondent-defendant with which he has amended the Written Statement; contra view will be incongruous.

¶78

In the above circumstances, W.P.No.19196/2017 is favoured and the impugned order dated 25.2.2016 is invalidated; petitioners’ subject application in I.A.No.22 filed u/o VI Rule 17 of the Code having been favoured, leave is accorded for amending the plaint as sought for.

¶79

¶80

Petitioners’ case in W.P.No.9659/2016 laying a challenge to the order dated 6.2.2016 whereby the respondent-defendants application in I.A.No.21 filed under the very same provisions has been allowed for amending the Written Statement, is dismissed.

¶81

The petitioner shall file the amended plaint within two weeks and the respondents may file the amended Addl. Written Statement within next two weeks.

¶82

Since suit is of the year 2010, the learned Judge of the court below is requested to try & dispose off the same within an outer limit of nine months and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶83

No costs.

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

cbc

T C Nagaraja v. P Anjinappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T C Nagaraja v. P Anjinappa

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

Smt. Munithayamma Vs Sri.K.M.Manjunatha

Sri K Govindan Vs Sri Muniyappa

Sri. Annayappa Vs K. Nagaraj

Sri Basava Prakash Vs Smt Vimala

Sri Veerabhadrappa Vs Sri Narayana Swamy

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Sri. M H Lakkegowda