Dismissed

Sri Chikkasonnappa v. Narayanaswamy

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2022WP/166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two defendants filed a writ petition under Article 227 CPC to quash an order allowing amendment of plaint in a property suit. The High Court directed the trial court to allow the amendment to correct land extent, finding no prejudice to defendants at the pre-trial stage and no error by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; trial court order allowing amendment of plaint remains unquashed.

Sri Chikkasonnappa Vs Narayanaswamy — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.166 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.CHIKKASONNAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶9

SRI.NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶10

RAVINDRA @ RAVI S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶11

SMT.CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶12

SRI.MUNIVENKATASWAMY S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶13

SRI.DEVARAJA S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶14

SRI.RAGHU S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶15

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶17

...PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI.JAGADISH J.R., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND

¶20

NARAYANASWAMY S/O NANJE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶21

…..RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI.SRINIVASA D.C, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DEVANAHALLI VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22.04.2021 IN O.S.NO.302/2015 ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT SEEKING AMENDMENT OF PLAINT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION (I.A.3) WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The captioned writ petition is filed by the

¶28

petitioners-defendants questioning the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC.,

¶29

The respondent - plaintiff has instituted a suit for declaration and for consequential relief of injunction in O.S.No.302/2015. The subject matter of

¶30

the suit at the time of filing of the suit was an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.162/2 and the extent

¶31

is shown as 1 acre 15 guntas out of total extent of 3 acres 30 guntas.

¶32

The present petitioners-defendants on receipt

¶33

of summons have tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire

¶34

¶35

averments made in the plaint. The title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed by the present petitioners herein.

¶36

The Trial Court is yet to frame issues. Before

¶37

framing of issues, the respondent - plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.3 seeking amendment of the plaint. In the proposed amendment, the respondent - plaintiff claims that there is some typographical error in mentioning the extent of the suit land and seeks correction in the extent. The respondent - plaintiff has laid a foundation by seeking incorporation at para Nos.4A and 4B in the plaint. The said application is allowed.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶39

petitioners - defendants would vehemently argue and contend that the proposed amendment is sought by the respondent - plaintiff by placing reliance on decree passed in O.S.No.638/2008, which was decided on

¶40

¶41

01.08.2017. The present petitioners have seriously contested the amendment application on the ground that the proposed amendment is based on subsequently developments and therefore, the defendants are seriously objecting for amendment of plaint. Learned Judge having taken note of the fact that amendment sought is at pre-trial stage and therefore, by adopting a lenient view, has exercised discretion and has allowed the amendment

¶42

application.

¶43

It is a trite law that all amendments more

¶44

particularly at pre-trial stage are to be liberally allowed. The present suit is a comprehensive suit, wherein the respondent-plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration and for consequential relief of injunction. If the proposed amendment is allowed at this juncture, no prejudice would be caused to the present petitioners - defendants. It is open for the present

¶45

¶46

petitioners - defendants to file additional written statement to counter the pleadings pleaded in the proposed amendment. If the proposed amendment is based on subsequent developments, the same has to be tested only after full fledged trial. Therefore, I am of the view that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in allowing the amendment application is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any illegality. I do not find any error committed by the learned Judge. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

NBM

Sri Chikkasonnappa v. Narayanaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chikkasonnappa v. Narayanaswamy

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

Smt K v Jyothi Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Sri. T. Ramchandra Nayak Vs the Karkala Jaycees Education

Sri K S Ashoka Vs Sri K S Balaji

Sri Venktaswamy Vs Smt Venktalakshamma

Smt Revannamma Vs Sri Rudrappa N C

Smt Bhavani Vs Smt M Mahadevamma