Dismissed

Smt. R Susheela v. Sri. Basavaraju

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2021WP/19234/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Wig petition challenged the civil court's order allowing substitution of 'madness' with 'innocent' in a plaint filed for partition. The High Court held there was no error in the civil court's decision to permit the amendment, rejecting the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected and the challenged common order of the civil court was allowed to stand.

Smt. R Susheela Vs Sri. Basavaraju — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 19234/2021 (GM/CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. R SUSHEELA W/O LATE B. MARISIDDEGOWDA AGED 63 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. M. VINAY S/O LT B. MARISIDDEGOWDA AGED 38 YEARS,

¶9

SMT.VIDYA D/O LATE B MARISIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶10

ALL ARE RESIDING AT, ANNUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, H D KOTE TQ MYSURU DIST - 571 114.

¶11

.. PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED 51 YEARS R/AT ANNUR VILLGE KASABA HOBLI H D KOTE TQ

¶15

¶16

MYSURU DIST - 571 114.

¶17

SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT ANNUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBOLI H D KOTE TQ MYSURU DIST - 571 114.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED.08.10.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.10 FILED UNDER ORDER 32 RULES 15 R/W SECTION 151 CPC AND IA NO.11 FILED UDNER ORDER VI RULED 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC H.D.KOTE IN O.S.NO.38/2020 AT ANNEXURE-J AND ALLOW THE ABOVE SAID APPLICATION (I.A.NO.1O) AT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION (I.A.NO.11) AT ANNEXURE-G.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners, who are the second to fourth defendants in OS No.38/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, H.D.Kote, (for short, "the civil Court") , have impugned the civil court's common order

¶23

¶24

dated 8.10.2021. The civil Court, by this common order, has disposed of the applications (IAs.10 and 11) under Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC and Order VI Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC.

¶25

The application under Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC is filed by the second respondent [the first defendant] and the other application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC is filed by the plaintiff [the first respondent]. These applications are filed for substitution of the word "madness" in the plaint with the word "innocent", and because the plaintiff is described as "mad" in the plaint, the first respondent has filed an application for appropriate orders under Order XXXII CPC.

¶26

The first respondent - plaintiff has filed this

¶27

suit for partition and for enquiry on mesne profits, and in the course of the plaint, it is mentioned that the first

¶28

¶29

respondent, because he was mad, has tolerated harassment by the defendants. The first respondent - plaintiff''s wife, who is examined as PW.1, in her evidence has stated that the plaintiff has executed a special power of attorney in her favour because he suffers from ear problem and blood pressure, and he falls ill frequently.

¶30

The present application [under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC] is thereafter filed for substitution of the word 'madness" with "innocence" stating that due to a bona fide mistake, the first respondent [the plaintiff] has been mentioned as being 'mad' when the true intent was only to describe the first respondent as innocent. The second respondent - the first defendant, because of the description of the first respondent - plaintiff as being mad, has filed his application for necessary orders.

¶31

¶32

The civil Court has accepted the first

¶33

respondent - plaintiff's case that the true intention was to describe himself as "innocent" and assert that the defendants have misused his innocence reasoning that the documents produced on his behalf would show that the first respondent - plaintiff is attending to his affairs and is not mad. The civil Court has also observed that the application for amendment of the pleadings must be construed liberally unless serious injustice has occurred or irreparable loss is caused to the other side, and because there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the first respondent is adjudged insane or mad, the first respondent - plaintiff must be permitted to substitute the expression "madness/mad" with 'innocence/innocent'.

¶34

This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the reasons offered by the civil court, is

¶35

¶36

not persuaded to opine that there is any error in the civil court's order. As such the petition stands rejected.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Smt. R Susheela v. Sri. Basavaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. R Susheela v. Sri. Basavaraju

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. Padmavathamma Vs Sri. N. Narendra Murthy

R Sampath Kumar Vs Doddapapanna

Mr. Raoul Chittiappa Vs Keith Rebello

Mr.Hemanth M K Vs M.S.Raghu

Sri.S.Kandaswammy Vs Smt.Shazia Tabassum

Smt. Asmathunnisa Vs Sri. Jameel Ahmed Khan