Dismissed

Puttanarasamma v. M G Pandurangaiah

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2022WP/5421/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, petitioners challenged an order dismissing their application to amend a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The High Court found the amendment sought after a ten-year delay lacked cogent reasons and did not alter the suit's nature, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits; order of trial court upholding dismissal of amendment application is sustained.

Puttanarasamma Vs M G Pandurangaiah — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.5421 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PUTTANARASAMMA W/O LATE ERAMALLAIAH D/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDENT OF KARPENAHALLI, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,

¶7

TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 112.

¶8

PUTTARANGAMMA W/O BHOOTHAIAH D/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDENT OF MADLUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. VAGEESHA N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M.G. PANDURANGAIAH S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶13

S. SAROJA W/O M.G. PANDURANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶14

¶15

M.P. MOHAN S/O M.G. PANDURANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶16

M.P. HIMANTH W/O M.G. PANDURANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶17

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MADLUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132. NOW RESIDING AT NO.141, 7^TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 077.

¶18

….RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15^TH FEBRUARY, 2022 PASSED ON IA FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.76 OF 2012 BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SIRA VIDE ANNEXURE-G; AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition is filed by plaintiffs in Original Suit No.76 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Sira (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), challenging the order dated 15^th February, 2022, dismissing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶23

¶24

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, plaintiffs have filed suit, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement on 24^th April, 2013 before the trial Court. After the matter was posted for arguments, plaintiffs have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to incorporate certain aspects in the suit as per the application produced at Annexure-E to the writ petition. The said application was resisted by defendants. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by impugned order dated 15^th February, 2022, rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition.

¶25

I have heard Sri. Vageesha N., learned counsel appearing for petitioners, who submits that the relief sought for by plaintiff/petitioners herein is with regard to partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the proposed amendment do not change the nature

¶26

¶27

of suit. Accordingly, he suggested that the finding recorded by the trial Court requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

¶28

Having heard Sri. Vageesha N., learned counsel appearing for petitioners, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the trial Court, wherein, it is not in dispute that the relief sought for is partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement as per Annexure-B and C. When the matter was posted for arguments, at that stage, plaintiffs have filed an application to amend the plaint and to add paragraph 2(a) in the plaint and also to amend the prayer portion in the plaint. In the backdrop of these aspects, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the trial Court, wherein, defendants 1 to 4 specifically had taken contention in written statement that the father of the defendant No.1 has executed the registered Will in favour of the defendant No.1 and on the basis of the said registered Will, revenue entries have been transferred in the name of the defendant No.1. However, plaintiffs have taken up plea for proposed amendment

¶29

¶30

in the year 2022 i.e., after a gap of nearly ten years from the date of filing of the written statement. I have carefully considered the reasons assigned by plaintiffs in the affidavit accompanying application IA.12 (Annexure-E), wherein, plaintiffs have failed to give cogent reasons for filing the said application, explaining due diligence on the part of plaintiffs seeking proposed amendment. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper which does not call for any interference in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

ARK

Puttanarasamma v. M G Pandurangaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttanarasamma v. M G Pandurangaiah

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. Venkatamma Vs T Kumar

Sri Amarchand Vs Sri M Narayanappa

Shri Shridhar Vs Smt Akbari Banu

Sri Mahimahesh Vs Sri Swamy

Smt. Puttagangamma @ Gangamma Vs Smt. Neelamma

Varghese M Jayan Vs Mar Gregorios Orthodox Church