Dismissed

Sri Murallikrishna v. Sri I Vijayakumar

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2021WP/22710/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order allowing amendment of a plaint after evidence commenced. The High Court rejected the petition, upholding the Civil Court's decision that the amendment did not change the suit's nature and the delay was due to oversight.

What did the court decide?

This Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order of the Civil Court and the writ petition stands rejected.

Sri Murallikrishna Vs Sri I Vijayakumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 22710/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. MURALLIKRISHNA S/O DORAISWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KOTHUR VILLAGE, OORGAUMPET POST, K.G.F. TALUK – 563 115.

¶8

... PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRA MOHAN J G, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

SRI I. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE IMMANUEL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SREERAMNAGAR, PEDDAPALLI MAIN ROAD, OORGAUMPET POST, K.G.F. TALUK - 563 115.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KGF IN O.S.NO.260/2019 DATED.29.10.2021 ON IA NO.3 UNDER ORDER VI RULE -17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE W.P. AND ETC.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner is the defendant in

¶17

O.S.No.260/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, K.G.F (for short, 'the civil Court' ). The civil Court by the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 has allowed the respondent's application (I.A.No.III) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the plaint. The civil Court by this impugned order has permitted the respondent to include additional plea that the petitioner simultaneously with handing over the cheque for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) has issued a Letter of Undertaking.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has commenced evidence and after the evidence is commenced, the present application is

¶19

¶20

filed without explaining why he could not refer to the Letter of Undertaking in the plaint earlier. However, the civil Court has allowed the amendment observing that the amendment does not change the nature of the suit inasmuch as the respondent's suit would essentially be on the basis of the cheque asserted by him and the petitioner, who contends that this document is manipulated, could always establish his case that this document is fabricated.

¶21

The learned counsel next submits that the respondent has not established due diligence and if due diligence is not established, the civil Court could not have permitted the respondent to amend the plaint. In this regard, this Court must observe that the respondent has stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that it is only by oversight he has not referred to the Letter of Undertaking and he did not know this until the date of the application.

¶22

¶23

This Court in the light of the explanation offered by the respondent and the reasons assigned by the civil Court, including the observation that the petitioner could always invoke provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C, is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order.

¶24

The petition stands rejected accordingly.

¶25

SD/JUDGE

¶26

Sri Murallikrishna v. Sri I Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Murallikrishna v. Sri I Vijayakumar

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

M/S Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Thimarayappa

Zilla Vokkaligara Sangha Shivamogga Vs Nirmala. D. C.

S.K. Madegowda Vs Boralingegowda

Smt Sobhamma Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri H K Nataraj Vs Sri H S Girish

S v Chennabasappa Vs Smt S v Rudramma