A writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application for amendment to a plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the application for amendment was filed long after the commencement of the trial and there was no evidence of due diligence preventing earlier filing.
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.
W.P No.51413/2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.51413 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
(BY SHRI. C.V. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
W.P No.51413/2019
2
S/O LATE VISHAL RAJGOPAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.253 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS BEML LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE-560 098
BANGALORE-560 072 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. S. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 & R2 -SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2019 (I.A.NO.15) IN O.S.NO.3094/2008 (VIDE ANNX-K) ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.07.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No.3094/2008 for partition. It was initially filed against petitioners' father Vishal Rajagopal. On 28.04.2008, an order of temporary injunction has been granted restraining the defendants in
the suit from alienating the suit property. According to
3
petitioners, on 11.06.2008, third respondent/defendant deceptively obtained a Sale deed in his favour without any consideration. He was impleaded as a defendant on 01.08.2009.
W.P No.51413/2019
4
made in para 9(c) of the plaint that third respondent got the
sale deed executed taking undue advantage of Vishal Rajagopal's condition at the time of execution of the sale deed. He further submitted that in view of several other averments made in the additional written statement, petitioners are compelled to file the instant application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking certain amendments.
opposing the writ petition.
W.P No.51413/2019
5
perused the records.
have sought for a prayer inter alia that the sale deed dated 11.06.2008 executed by Vishal Rajagopal does not bind their 1/4th share and for partition.
W.P No.51413/2019
6
No.25986/2011 dated 08.11.2013 on the file of City Civil
Court, Mayohall is collusive and fraudulent.
W.P No.51413/2019
7
respondents No. 1 and 2 have challenged the judgment and decree in O.S. No.25986/2011 in R.F.A. No.234/2014.
Reckoned from 2014, petitioners have filed the instant application after lapse of five years after presenting the said appeal in this Court. Thus, the material on record does not show that petitioners could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge.
accordingly dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
SPS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment to a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is maintainable after the commencement of the trial despite the party's arguments regarding due diligence.
Whether the high court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of the amendment application under Writ Petition jurisdiction granted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Rajkumar S/o Vishal Rajgopal
Vishal R. Prasad S/o Late Vishal Rajgopal
Smt. Girija Rajgopal W/o Late Vishal Rajgopal
Vishal Suresh S/o Late Vishal Rajgopal
Sri. Channabasappa S/o Late Rajappa Shetty
P.S. Dinesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
