Allowed

Smt. Savitha W/O Late Badarinarayan Padaki v. Smt. Manjula W/O Late Govindarao Padaki

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023WP/100047/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of an application for amendment of plaint to include prayers for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. The High Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the amendment to address dispossession occurring during the suit's pendency while preventing its effects from relating back to the original filing date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting I.A.No.32 is set aside; the application is allowed for amendment subject to the condition that it shall not relate back to the date of suit but shall be reckoned from the

Smt. Savitha W/O Late Badarinarayan Padaki Vs Smt… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100047 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100047 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAVITRI W/O LATE BADARINARAYAN PADAKI, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, BY HER P.A.HOLDER PETITIONER NO.2, R/O.U.S.PADAKI LAYOUT, NEAR SHARADA SCHOOL, KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231.

¶10

VASANTHA RAO S/O SHANKAR RAO PADAKI AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.U.S.PADAKI LAYOUT NEAR SHARADA SCHOOL, KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231

¶11

BOTH ARE LRS OF BADARINARAYAN S/O.SHANKAR RAO PADAKI.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶13

(BY SRI P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

SMT. MANJULA W/O. LATE GOVINDARAO PADAKI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O.U.S.PADAKI LAYOUT, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231

¶17

SMT. SPOORTHY D/O LATE GOVINDARAO PADAKI AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O.U.S.PADAKI LAYOUT, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL P.C.NO.583231.

¶18

2 - WP No. 100047 of 2023

¶19

SMT. SHWETA (SONU) D/O.GOVINDARAO PADAKI AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O.U.S.PADAKI LAYOUT KOPPAL TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL P.C.NO.583231.

¶20

SIMIT S/O LATE GOVINDARAO PADAKI AGE. 16 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O.U.S.PADAKI LAYOUT, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231

¶21

RESPONDENT NO.4 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. MANJULA

¶22

ALL ARE LRS OF GOVINDARAO S/O.SRIPAD RAO PADAKI.

¶23

VENKATESH S/O. SRIPAD RAO PADAKI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.PADAKI LAYOUT, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231.

¶24

TILAKABHI RAMARAO S/O SRIPAD RAO PADAKI AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.PADAKI LAYOUT, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231.

¶25

SMT. USHABAI W/O UDAYKUMAR PADAKI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O.PADAKI LAYOUT, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231

¶26

SYED NASIR HUSSAIN S/O S.M.JILANI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HATAARPET, KOPPAL,

¶27

TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231

¶28

SYED JAMALUDDIN HUSSAINI, S/O. SYED MAINUDDIN HUSSAINI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HATAGARPET, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 100047 of 2023

¶31

SYED YAKUB HUSSAINI, S/O. SYED SHABBIR HUSSAINI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. TEGGINAKERI ONI, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, P.C.NO.583231.

¶32

MEHABOOB JILANI S/O MAHAMMADSAB KANAKAGIRI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. TEGGINAKERI ONI, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL P.C.NO.583231

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI DEEPAK C.MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, 5 AND 7)

¶35

(BY SRI M.M.NAIKWADI, AND SRI A.M.KADI, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.10) (RESPONDENT NO.4 IS MINOR R/BY. RESPONDENT NO.1) (SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3, 6, 8, 9 AND 11 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED IN O.S.NO.82/2017 DATED 03/12/2022 ON I.A.NO. 32 BY THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL VIDE ANNEXURE-H, AND ALLOW I.A.NO.XXXII DT.21/11/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

WP No. 100047 of 2023

¶40

ORDER

¶41

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 03.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.32 in O.S.No.82/2017 by the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Koppal, whereby the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶43

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 5, 7 and learned counsel for respondent no.10 and perused the material on record.

¶44

The material on record discloses that the petitioners initially instituted the suit for permanent injunction and for other reliefs against the respondent/defendants. Subsequently, the petitioners filed the instant application seeking amendment of the prayer column by introducing the prayers for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession inter alia contending

¶45

¶46

WP No. 100047 of 2023

¶47

that during pendency of the suit, respondents had illegally and highhandedly the construction and dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. Under these circumstances, the petitioners sought for amendment of the plaint by introducing subsequent events and additional reliefs. The said application having been opposed by the respondents, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.32, aggrieved by which, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶48

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the

¶49

Trial Court will indicate that the main ground on which the Trial Court has refused the amendment had been sought for after commencement of trial. However, the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the well settled principles of law governing amendment of pleadings in as much as a party is entitled to seek amendment by introducing additional facts in relation to subsequent events that have transpired during pendency of the suit. The Trial Court

¶50

¶51

WP No. 100047 of 2023

¶52

also failed to appreciate that the purpose of allowing amendment was to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and in the light of the specific contentions urged in the proposed amendment that the petitioners were dispossessed during pendency of the suit and construction put up by the respondents, it was necessary to seek amendment of plaint. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court misdirected itself in rejecting I.A.No.32 and the same having occasioned failure of justice warrants interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶53

In the result, I pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. The petition is hereby allowed.

¶56

ii. The impugned order dated 03.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.32 in O.S.No.82/2017 is hereby set aside and I.A.No.32 filed by the petitioners is allowed subject to condition that amendment shall not relate back to the date of suit but shall be reckoned from the date of filing of application i.e., 21.11.2022.

¶57

¶58

WP No. 100047 of 2023

¶59

iii. Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent/defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint by put for all defences available in law, including maintainability, limitation, etc.,

¶60

iv. All rival contentions between the parties including limitation, etc., are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶61

SD JUDGE

¶62

ckk

Smt. Savitha W/O Late Badarinarayan Padaki v. Smt. Manjula W/O Late Govindarao Padaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitha W/O Late Badarinarayan Padaki v. Smt. Manjula W/O Late Govindarao Padaki

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

Sri. Kandi Rami Reddy S/O Kandi Dodda Timma Reddy Vs Sri. P. Nagi Reddy S/O Polike Venkataramanappa

Mallanagouda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Geeta W/O Ashok Tubachi Vs State of Karnataka

Prateek S. Goudru Vs Union of India

Rukmini W/O Late Parushram Birje Vs the City Corporation Belagavi

Vinayaka S/O Balu Ambedkar Vs Shivappa S/O Adiveppa Malagi