Writ petitioner challenged the trial Court's order dismissing an application for amendment of plaint under CPC Order VI Rule 17. The High Court merited no interference holding the trial Court correctly found the amendment was an afterthought lacking due diligence, citing Patasibai v. Ratanlal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.394 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI K MALIGAPPA @ MALLIGAPPA S/O LATE KALAPPA @ KALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO.39, 5TH CROSS CHIKKABANASAVADI K R PURAM, HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU -560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANIL S PARASANALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI PRAKASH B D S/O LATE B K DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT 5TH CROSS CHIKKABANASAVADI K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU -560 043
….RESPONDENT
(BY SMT SUDHA D, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2021 PASSED ON IA NO.1 OF
2
2021 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.25778 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU (CCH-73) AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed by plaintiff in Original Suit No. No.25778 of 2019 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 21st September, 2021, dismissing IA.1 of 2021.
3
ground that the said application is an afterthought by the plaintiff, which order is impugned in this Writ Petition.
4
the Apex Court in the case of SMT. PATASIBAI & ORS v. RATANLAL r eportedin (1990)2 SCC 42, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court at paragraph 9 of impugned judgment is just and proper and no interference is called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
lnn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as an afterthought due to lack of due diligence.
Whether interference is called for by this High Court in the impugned order dismissing the application for amendment under the law declared in Patasibai v. Ratanlal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(1990)2 SCC 42Referred¶4
SMT. PATASIBAI & ORS v. RATANLAL
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI K MALIGAPPA @ MALLIGAPPA
SRI PRAKASH B D
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
