High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to amend a written statement in a partition suit, finding the request belated and an abuse of process, thereby dismissing the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; costs of Rs.25,000 levied on petitioner payable to respondent Caveator.
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 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.880 OF 2021(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI L VENUKUMAR, S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.21, LALIJINAGAR, IST MAIN ROAD, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 030. (BY SRI. SRINIVASAN T, ADVOCATE)
...PETITIONER
AND:
SMT L SUMANA, W/O SRI B N RAVI, D/O LATE SRI LAKSHMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.93, 16TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, TAVAREKERE, BTM I STAGE, DCR POST, BENGALURU-560 029. (BY SRI.SAMPATH BAPAT,ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
… RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.09.2020 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED V ADDITONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY BY ALLOWING I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.2634/2013 AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
Petitioner being the defendant in a partition suit in O.S.No.2634/2013 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 08.09.2020 a copy whereof is at Annexure-E whereby the learned Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City having rejected his application in IA nO.5 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 has denied leave to amend the Written Statement for including a particular property to the suit schedule.
respondent having entered appearance though her counsel vehemently opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the grounds on which it has been structured.
a) the subject partition suit is of the year 2013;
issues having been framed, the trial is half a through; at this stage, the petitioner has moved the application
3
seeking leave to amend the Written Statement for introducing the subject property to the suit schedule; thus, highly belated request of the petitioner has been rightly rejected since law does not come to the aid of indolent more so, when the prayer of the kind is interdicted by the proviso to Order VI rule 17 vide 2002 of the Code; and,
b) the learned counsel for the Caveator brings to the notice of this Court, compromise decree dated 21.03.1998 entered in an earlier suit in O.S.No.1700/1998 to which petitioner was the sole defendant pursuant to which the subject property has fallen exclusively to the share of the Caveator respondent; this apart, petitioner happens to be a consenting witness to the agreement to sell; and he has sworn to an affidavit confirming the same; in fact, petitioner has moved the subject application with a nefarious design of defrauding the Caveator and has abused the process of Court.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition fails; a cost of Rs.25,000/- is levied and the same shall be payable to the Caveator respondent within four weeks, failing which it carries interest at the rate of 3% per month thereon till payment.
4
It is open to the Caveator respondent to execute this
order as if it is the decree of the Court below.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Additional City Civil Judge's rejection of the petitioner's amend application belatedly filed in a partition suit which was half through.
Whether the petitioner's request to amend the written statement to include a property already settled in a prior compromise decree should be allowed.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri L Venukumar
Smt L Sumana
Krishna S.Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
