Allowed

Sri Narasimhamurthy v. Sri Venkataramana

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2021WP/20817/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a lower court order rejecting an amendment to a civil plaint. The High Court held that the below court erred in refusing the amendment to reflect the petitioner's status as a foster son, as it was necessary for the real controversy.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.10.2021 in O.S.No.468/2014 rejecting the amendment application (I.A.No.XII) is invalidated, and the petitioner's application is allowed. The respondent is granted liberty t

Sri Narasimhamurthy Vs Sri Venkataramana — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.20817/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE SANNANARASAIAH AGED 47 YEARS R/O LINGENAHALLI VILLAGE SOLUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK AND RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 127.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SEEBIPRASAD K N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI VENKATARAMANA S/O CHIKKANNA AGED 58 YEARS R/O GARURU VILLAGE SOLUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK AND RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 127.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. B.N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.10.2021 PASSED ON

¶15

¶16

I.A. UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 IN O.S.NO.468/2014 BY THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MAGADI VIDE ANNEXURE-M.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.468/2014 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi (for short, ' the civil Court '). The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.468/2014 for permanent injunction asserting that he is the son of Sri. Sannanarasaiah. The petitioner's evidence is complete, and in the cross examination it is brought out that he has filed another suit for partition and in that suit he has described himself as the son of Sri. Nanjaiah.

¶20

¶21

The petitioner thereafter has filed the

¶22

present application (I.A.No.XII) to amend the plaint to include that Sri. Sannanarasiah is his foster father. The civil Court has rejected this amendment opining that the petitioner has not established diligence and the proposed amendment would blunt the admissions made in the cross examination.

¶23

3. The petitioner's case is that he is in

¶24

possession of the subject property as the foster son of Sri. Sannanarasiah and the respondent, the owner of the neighboring property, cannot interfere with his possession. In fact, the petitioner has described himself as son of late Sri. Nanjaiah, but the proposed amendment would only enable an effective adjudication of the controversy viz ., whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent injunction against the respondent in the light of his case that he is in possession of the subject property as the foster son of Sri. Sannanarasiah.

¶25

¶26

The civil Court should have examined the merits of the proposed amendment in the context of the case and the settled law that amendments after commencement of trial could be permitted so long as it is necessary for decision on the real controversy and the other side is not put to injustice. As regards apprehension addressed by the respondent’s learned counsel that the admissions in the cross examination would be blunted by this amendment, it would suffice for this Court to observe that if there is any divergence in the plea and the evidence, the respondent could take advantage of the same.

¶27

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 in O.S.No.468/2014 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi is invalidated allowing the petitioner's application (I.A.No.XII). The respondent

¶28

¶29

shall be at liberty to file additional written statement

¶30

upon the amendment of the plaint.

¶31

SD/- JUDGE

¶32

Sri Narasimhamurthy v. Sri Venkataramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narasimhamurthy v. Sri Venkataramana

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 Venkatamma Vs Sri Munishami

Smt. Parvathamma Vs Sri. Karibasaveshwara Seva Samiti (R)

The Management of Sri Murudabasaveshwara Sc/St Vs D G Mruthyunjayappa

Sri Jayaram K Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

M/S Rhea Healthcare Private Limited Vs Ms.Roshni S Kirpalani

Shri. Channakeshava Devarau Vs Bosch Naukarara Gruha Nirmana