This Writ Petition challenged the dismissal of an application for leave to amend plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC rejected by the Civil Court. The High Court declined indulgence as the case progressed to trial stage and dismissed the petition resting in the Court below's discretion.
Petition dismissed; suit to be disposed within 7 months.
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 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.223 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BELLUTI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN CODE:562 105
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SHANKAR REDDY.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI.K.M.MANJUNATHA
SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1051 KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA VIDYARANYAPURA POST KODGENAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE:560 091.
2
3 . SRI BACHE GOWDA SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KESHAWARA VILLAGE AND POST NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK PIN CODE:562 101
3
KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, PIN CODE:562105.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R5, R7 & R8 - ABSENT; NOTICE TO R1 & R2-D/W V/O DATED:04.01.2017)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD14.12.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.115/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-K ON THE FILEOF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHICKBALLAPUR SET ASIDE THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DTD14.12.2016 SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners being the plaintiffs in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.115/2011 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 14.12.2016 a copy whereof is at Annexure-C whereby the learned Civil Judge, Chickaballapur, having rejected their application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908, has refused to grant leave to amend the plaint.
4
pass over; however that will not relieve the Court of its duty to decide the matter on merits.
petitioners and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
a) the suit is of the year 2011; Written Statement was filed on 25.08.2011 by the 9th defendant and on 11.09.2015 by the 10th defendant; issues having been framed, trial took place and the matter was posted for arguments; at that stage, the subject application was moved and it has been rightly rejected by the Court below in view of rigor of Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of amended CPC, the case of the petitioners having not been shown to fall in any of the exceptions; and,
b) whether amendment to the pleadings needs to be
allowed or not is ordinarily a matter of discretion which the learned Judge of the Court below has exercised in accordance with the Rules of reasons & justice and such orders do not merit a deeper examination as a matter of course at the hands of Writ Court exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction vide SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., & ANOTHER (2003) 3 SCC 524;
5
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed, costs having been made easy; learned Judge of the Court below is requested to dispose off the suit within seven months and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction to grant leave to amend plaint rejected by Civil Court.
Whether amendment of pleadings falls within exceptions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC justifying writ intervention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Referred¶40
(2003) 3 SCC 524 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Munithayamma Wife of Late Krushnappa
Smt. Venkatamma Wife of B. S. Venkata Reddy
Sri K.M.Manjunatha
Krishna S.Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
