The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition withdrawing an order by a Senior Civil Judge refusing leave to amend a plaint to include the word 'remaining' in property description, upholding the lower court's view that the amendment was unnecessary.
Writ petition disposed of; liberty reserved to seek permission below to lead further evidence.
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, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.851 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT THAYIMUDDAMMA, W/O MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.87, 16TH MAIN, 4TH PHASE, J P NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 078. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) (BY SRI. G NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
...PETITIONER
AND:
SRI BALEGOWDA, S/O CHIKKAVEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHIKKADEVARAHALLI, MARALAVADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TQ, RAMANAGARA - 562 121.
… RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNING ORDER DATED 22.10.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.120/2014 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KANAKAPURA, VIDE ANNX-E AND BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.4.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner being the plaintiff in a suit for removal of
encroachment in O.S.No.322/2009 (New No. 120/2014) is
2
knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 22.10.2020 a copy whereof is at Annexure-E whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kanakapura, having rejected his application in IA No.4 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908, has denied leave to amend the plaint for introducing the word “remaining” in the description of boundaries in the suit schedule ‘B’ property.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek permission of the Court below to lead further evidence to substantiate what he wanted to by introducing the said word, since it is consistent with the observation of the Court below on which the impugned order is structured.
Writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the order refusing leave to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Not cited in textReferred¶18
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt Thayimuddamma
Sri Balegowda
Krishna S.Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court