Dismissed

Sri. a Srinivas v. Sri. Muniyappa Since Deceased by His Lrs

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2023WP/10433/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 seeking quashing of an order permitting amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The High Court held that the Trial Court had protected the defendant's interest by directing retention of an existing paragraph while adding a new one.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed.

Sri. a Srinivas Vs Sri. Muniyappa Since… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:28339 WP No. 10433 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 10433 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. A SRINIVAS S/O SRI APPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT SRI NILAYA OPP. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, VARTHUR, BENGALURU-560087.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G B, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. MUNIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶13

SMT. JAYAMMA

¶14

1. W/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

SMT. INDIRAMMA. M D/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶17

SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT NO.261 HULUBHAVI ROAD VARTHUR, BENGALURU-560087.

¶19

SRI VENKATESH @ VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE SRI MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT AMBEDKAR COLONY VARTHUR, BENGALURU-560087.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:28339 WP No. 10433 of 2023

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.03.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 2^ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU ON IA NO.8 IN OS NO.1423/2013 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF NO.2/R-4 HEREIN UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN OS.No.1423/2013.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner/defendant No.12 in O.S.No.1423/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Trial Court’) is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning order dated 23.03.2023 whereby I.A.No.VIII filed by respondents/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment is allowed.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Nandish

¶27

Gowda.G.B., for petitioner/defendant No.12. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28339 WP No. 10433 of 2023

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant

¶30

No.12 would submit that respondents/plaintiffs when the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, filed application I.A.No.VIII under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking substitution of new paragraph 5 by deleting existing paragraph 5 of the plaint. Learned counsel would submit that if the admission made by the plaintiffs at paragraph 5 of the plaint is permitted to be deleted and if permitted to add paragraph 5(a) where the plaintiffs have taken entirely a different stand, it would affect and prejudice the case of the petitioner/defendant No.12. Learned counsel would submit that at paragraph 5 of the plaint, plaintiffs have stated that grandfather of the plaintiffs Bhola had two sons namely Muniyellappa and Chinnappa and out of the joint nucleus funds, Bhola and Muniyellappa purchased the suit schedule property in the name of Chinnappa under sale deed dated 14.09.1970. But, by way of amendment, the plaintiffs intend to contend that land in question is an Inam land, granted to

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28339 WP No. 10433 of 2023

¶32

Bhola. Thus, he submits that admission made by the plaintiffs if amendment is permitted would be taken away.

¶33

On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.12 and on careful perusal of the impugned order, I am of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order permitting the amendment of the plaint.

¶34

The Trial Court while permitting the amendment has protected the interest of the petitioner/defendant No.12. Paragraph 16 of the impugned order makes it clear that if the amendment application is allowed partly, directing the plaintiffs to retain the existing paragraph 5 and add paragraph 5A, justice will be done to both the parties. If the amendment was permitted to delete paragraph 5, then the petitioner/defendant No.12’s case would have been prejudiced. As the paragraph 5 is retained, the petitioner/defendant No.12’s case would not affect and it would not prejudice the case of petitioner/defendant No.12.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:28339 WP No. 10433 of 2023

¶37

For the reasons recorded above, writ petition stands

¶38

dismissed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri. a Srinivas v. Sri. Muniyappa Since Deceased by His Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a Srinivas v. Sri. Muniyappa Since Deceased by His Lrs

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

Nagaraju Jetty Vs H.R.Sathish Kumar

Smt Souharda Rudrappa Vs Sri Vinay Raj H D

Smt. Sahana. S Vs Sri. Bishwanth S.H. (Bipin)

Sri K Appaji Vs Sri D M Doddamuniyappa

Sumitramma Vs Jayaramu D N

Smt. Manjula Vs Sri. M. C. Chandrashekaraiah