Allowed

Sri Rangappa D v. Ms Beena John

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2022WP/181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the plaintiff challenging a trial Court order dismissing an application to amend the plaint. The Court held that the proposed amendment regarding property boundaries would not change the suit nature and permitted the amendment under CPC Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, and the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Sri Rangappa D Vs Ms Beena John — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.181 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. RANGAPPA D. S/O DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.18, KHATA NO.996/924/3, 7^TH ‘A’ MAIN, ASHWATHAPPA LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SANTHOSH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

MS. BEENA JOHN D/O JUSTICE JOHN STEPHEN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.11, 2^ND CROSS, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT, MANORAYANAPALYA, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032

¶11

….RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13^TH DECEMBER, 2021 (ANNEXURE-A) IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1073 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDITIONAL

¶13

¶14

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS; AND ETC.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in Original suit No.1703 of 2019 on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), challenging the order dated 13^th December, 2021, dismissing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶18

Having heard, Sri. Santhosh S. Gogi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff be permitted to make the proposed amendment in the plaint. The finding recorded by the trial Court is that there is a discrepancy with regard to boundaries in the item No.1 of the ‘B’ schedule property. However, taking into consideration, the reasons assigned by the plaintiff in the affidavit accompanying the application, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court is to be set aside by allowing the application filed by

¶19

¶20

the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code since the same would not change the nature of the suit as well.

¶21

It is also made clear that, though, the proviso under Order VI Rule 17 is having an embargo that the application cannot be accepted under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code after commencement of evidence, however, taking into consideration the factual aspects of the case on merits and the reasons stated in the affidavit that due diligence has been explained by the plaintiff for not having mentioned the boundaries properly, I am of the view that the order dated 13^th December, 2021 is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint as per application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶22

Sd/JUDGE

¶23

ARK

Sri Rangappa D v. Ms Beena John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rangappa D v. Ms Beena John

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

Mr S K Chand Basha Vs Mr K Taj

Radhamma Vs Satyanarayana

Kariyappa Vs Smt. Mangalamma

Sri Venaktaramanappa Vs Smt Hemavathi

M B Shivagangappa Vs H Nageshaiah

Henry Fernandes Vs Linda Fernandes