Dismissed

A. R. Ramaprasad v. Smt. Shoba Devi

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2022WP/2405/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a belated application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint in an original suit. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove diligence given the four-year delay and potential prejudice to defendants.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition deemed to be devoid of merits and dismissed.

A. R. Ramaprasad Vs Smt. Shoba Devi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶5

W.P. NO.2405 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

1 . A. R. RAMAPRASAD S/O. LATE A. V. RANGACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶8

2 . A. R. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O. LATE A. V. RANGACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶9

3 . A. R. PADMA S/O. LATE A. V. RANGACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶10

ALL ARE RESIDING AT PANDURANGASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶11

4 . MRS. A. R. VEENA W/O. A. SAMPATH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE NO.4, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, SAMPIGE LAYOUT, 8^TH CROSS, PATTAEGAR PALYA MAIN ROAD, MARENHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶12

5 . MRS. A. R. RAMA W/O. P. S. SEETHA RAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 94/1, 41, AMRUTHNAGAR,

¶13

¶14

SHAKARANAGARA POST, BENGALURU -560 092.

¶15

6 . MRS. A. R. MADHAVI W/O. R. SRIVASTAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.G-158, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, HAL OLD TOWN SHIP QUARTERS, BENGALURU -560 017.

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI BALAJI RAGHUNATHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND

¶19

1 . SMT. SHOBA DEVI W/O. LATE C. V. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 237, ADENAHALLI ROAD, NPO ROAD CROSS, CHICKBALLAPUR TOWN-562 101.

¶20

2 . SRI. A. N. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE A. LAKSHMINARAYAN RAO, HOUSE NO. 784, H.M.T. LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU -560 073.

¶21

3 . SRI. M. VENKATARAYAPPA S/O. LATE GUNDAPPA, HOUSE NO. 21185, DINNAE HOSAHALLI ROAD, PRASHANTHNAGAR, CHICKBALLAPUR CITY, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶22

4 . SMT. R. A. NIRMALA W/O. V. SHANKAR REDDY, WARD NO.4, OPPOSITE G.H. NAGARAJU HOUSE, PRASHANTHANAGAR, CHICKBALLAPUR CITY, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶23

¶24

5 . THE SUB-REGISTRAR TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.

¶25

6 . THE COMMISSIONER NAGARA SABHA OFFICE, TOWN HALL SQUARE, CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.

¶26

7 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶27

….RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI SHASHIDHARA BELAGUMBA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SMT. ROOPA K R, HCGP FOR R5 AND 7; SRI L VENKATARAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R1 AND 3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.3.2020 AT ANEXURE--F PASSED IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF C.P.C IN O.S.NO.245 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (JR DN) AT CHICKBALLAPUR AT ANENXURE-F

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.245 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapur, challenging the order dated 16.03.2020,

¶33

¶34

rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶35

Brief facts are that, plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants, seeking direction to defendant No.5 to strike off /score off the illegal entries/ the registrations of Annexure-D produced in the original suit, dated 07.07.2006 and other consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. The said suit is resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint and also to direct defendant No.4 to deposit Rs.16,000/- per month as mesne profits from the date of the suit till the disposal of the suit. The said application was resisted by defendant No.4. The trial Court, after considering the material on record by order dated 16.03.2020, rejected the application and feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have presented this Writ Petition.

¶36

¶37

I have heard Sri Balaji Rahunathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Shashidhara Belagumba, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, Smt. Roopa K.R. learned HCGP for respondents 5 and 7 and Sri. L. Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.

¶38

Sri Balaji Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that, the finding recorded by the trial Court, particularly, at paragraph 20 of the impugned order that the said application is filed by the plaintiffs without explaining diligence in proceeding the case is incorrect and same is required interference in this Writ Petition. He further contended that it is open for the parties to file an application seeking amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court requires interference of this Court.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that, the application filed by the plaintiffs is after four years from the date of filing of the suit and, if the

¶40

¶41

application is allowed, the same would change the nature of the suit and therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper and same cannot be interfered in this writ petition. He also made available the judgment of this Court passed in RSA No.1176 of 2004 connected with RSA No.1177 of 2004 decided on 17.11.2005 and submitted that the plaintiffs in the present suit are the legal representatives of the deceased appellant in the aforementioned Regular Second Appeals and said appeals came to be dismissed with regard to same schedule property, which is sought in this writ petition and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of writ papers, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiffs in the application. Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the plaintiffs have sought for striking off the entries made in the registered Sale Deed 07.07.2006 in the suit as per application produced at AnnexureD, and the proposed amendment is sought with regard to

¶43

¶44

seeking the mesne profits as well as to adding paragraph 18(d) to handover the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property by removing semi structure put up by defendant No.4. Looking into the affidavit accompanying application, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure produced at Annexure-D, it is undisputed fact that suit is filed in the year 2016 and application seeking amendment is filed at the belated stage i.e. at the time of evidence of the plaintiffs and perusal of the writ papers would indicate that defendant No.4 has started putting up construction in the suit schedule property and the said property is the subject matter in earlier suit i.e. Original Suit No.26 of 2005. Therefore, I am of the view that the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs have not proved due diligence as employed in the Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, for accepting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is also to be noted that, great hardship and prejudice will be caused to the defendant, if the application is allowed. Taking into consideration the fact that this court in aforementioned Regular Second Appeals dismissed the appeals

¶45

¶46

preferred by the plaintiffs and, in that view of the matter, I do not find any material illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of

¶47

merits.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

A. R. Ramaprasad v. Smt. Shoba Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. R. Ramaprasad v. Smt. Shoba Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahimahesh Vs Sri Swamy

Smt. Puttagangamma @ Gangamma Vs Smt. Neelamma

Puttanarasamma Vs M G Pandurangaiah

Smt. Muthamma Vs Sri. Shivappa B C

Masooda Begum Vs Smt P S Sangeetha

Sri M Muninanja Vs Sri N Changalarayan