Disposed

Mrs B N Pushpa Kumari v. Mr L Mallesh

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022WP/5940/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order allowing an amendment application in a civil suit. The Court quashed the order on precise grounds but allowed the trial court to permit the amendment and direct the filing of an additional written statement with appropriate issues framed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the petitioner was permitted to file an additional written statement, and the trial court was instructed to frame issues and relegate parties to lead evidence.

Mrs B N Pushpa Kumari Vs Mr L Mallesh — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5940 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS B N PUSHPA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O S LAKSHMANA KHUMARAA, R/AT NO.584/1, 9TH MAIN, 3RD A CROSS, BHCS LAYOUT, CHIKKALASANDRA BENGALURU-61

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND

¶11

MR. L. MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE LINGAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.1, 1^ST CROSS, KODIPALYA, ESHWARNAGAR, KONANAKUNTE POST, BENGALURU-560062

¶12

MR L MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMINARANACHARI, R/AT NO.2, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, YELACHENAHALLI, BENGALURU-560078

¶13

¶14

MR J K ANANDH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAPPA, R/AT NO.264, 3RD MAIN, KRISHNAPPA COMPOUND, JARAGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560078

¶15

MR M GURURAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE MAYIGAPPA, R/AT NO.378, 8TH CROSS, INDUSTRIAL TOWN, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560004

¶16

MR T D JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O T V DORAIRAJAN, R/AT NO.K-1, TYPE -III, CPWD QUARTERS, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2022 VIDE ANNNX-A ALLOWING AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE R-1 TO R-4 IN O.S.NO.26449/2010 AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 28.02.2022 passed on an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, where in the learned Judge allowed the applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

¶23

2. Respondent/plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking

¶24

relief of declaration and for consequential relief of injunction. The said suit is contested by the present petitioner/defendant by filing written statement. The respondent/plaintiff has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment. By way of proposed amendment, respondent/plaintiff intended to seek relief of possession by contending that the present respondent/plaintiff has put up construction during the pendency of the suit and therefore sought additional relief of possession of schedule ‘B’ property

¶25

¶26

by demolishing the structure. The learned Judge allowed the said application and thereby permitted the respondent/plaintiff to incorporate proposed

¶27

amendment as sought in the application.

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶29

Perused the order under challenge. From the material what emerges is that respondent/plaintiff was yet to commence his evidence. Therefore, this Court would find that proposed amendment was sought at pre-trial stage. It is a trite that all pre-trial amendments are to be liberally allowed to advance substantial justice. It is in this background, this court would concur with the finding recorded by the Trial Court in allowing amendment application. But at the said time, I would also find some force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the

¶30

¶31

petitioner/defendant. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2010 and the proposed amendment is sought in 2022. The order of the learned Judge in allowing amendment application presupposes that the proposed amendment relates back to the date of filing of the suit. It is this portion of the order which needs to be interfered by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. If amendment application is moved after 12 years, then the proposed amendment sought in 2022 would in no any way relate back to the date of filing of the suit. The question as to whether it would relate back to the date of filing of the suit or the proposed amendment is barred by limitation is a disputed question which needs to be examined after full-fledged trial. Therefore, I am of the view that plaintiffs/defendants is entitled to file additional written statement and raise all defences that are available to him on account

¶32

¶33

of the proposed amendment which is allowed by the learned Judge. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all those pleas which are available to him post amendment.

¶34

In the event additional written statement is filed and if the said pleadings gives rise to fresh issues interms of under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, the learned Judge shall frame appropriate issues and then relegate the parties to lead evidence.

¶35

Accordingly, Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

HDK

Mrs B N Pushpa Kumari v. Mr L Mallesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs B N Pushpa Kumari v. Mr L Mallesh

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

Jayantha Pai S Vs Prerana Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Byrareddy Vs Sri Kempareddy

Sri Devendra Vs Smt Vinodamma

K R Venkataramaiah Vs K v Krishnappa

Sri.K.v.Doddaiah Vs Sri.B.Lakshmaiah

K v Krishnappa Vs Sri Anjaneya Murthy