The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order rejecting an amendment application to include additional property in a partition suit, directing costs to the plaintiffs.
Impugned order dated 12.02.2019 set aside; I.A. No.10 allowed subject to payment of cost Rs.5,000/- to plaintiffs within four weeks.
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 DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.106408/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
1 . AKKAWWA W/O SHIVANAND PARASANNAVAR @ GIRIMALLANNAVAR, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, HUBBALLI. 2 . SIDDAPPA S/O SHIVANAND PARASANNAVAR @ GIRIMALLANNAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, HUBBALLI. 3. MANJUNATH S/O SHIVANAND PARASANNAVAR @ GIRIMALLANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, HUBBALLI.
.. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADV.)
AND :
2
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARENDRA VILLAGE TALUK: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.
3 . SHIDDESHWAR S/O YALLAPPA DIVATAGI @ PARASANNAVAR, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARENDRA VILLAGE TALUK: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. BAWAKHAN, ADV. FOR R1. R2 TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2019 IN O.S.NO.665/2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ALLOW APPLICATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi in O.S.No.665/2013 wherein I.A.10 filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘CPC’) is rejected.
3
partition and separate possession against the petitioners/defendants. After service of summons, the petitioners appeared before the Court through their counsel and filed written statement. Later, they have filed an application for amendment seeking for inclusion of one of the properties. Their application was rejected only on the ground that there is delay in filing the application.
4
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the plaintiffs before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of the said amount, the trial Court is directed to release the amount favour of the plaintiffs.
Sd/JUDGE
Kmv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the amendment application despite the trial court rejecting it for delay.
Whether impugned order rejecting the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be quashed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
AKKAWWA W/O SHIVANAND PARASANNAVAR @ GIRIMALLANNAVAR, SIDDAPPA S/O SHIVANAND PARASANNAVAR @ GIRIMALLANNAVAR, MANJUNATH S/O SHIVANAND PARASANNAVAR @ GIRIMALLANNA
GADIGEWWA W/O YALLAPPA DIVATAGI @ PARASANNAVAR, SADANAND S/O YALLAPPA DIVATAGI @ PARASANNAVAR, SHIDDESHWAR S/O YALLAPPA DIVATAGI @ PARASANNAVAR, ANNAPURNA D/O Y
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
