This writ petition challenged the trial court's order allowing amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to correct a date error in a sale deed. The High Court found no error and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition filed by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13649 WP No. 104432 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 104432 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
ROHAN HADIMANI T Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S.HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. H.R.DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R5; R6 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2018 ON I.A.No.VIII IN O.S.NO.1035/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BELAGAVI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-"E".
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.VIII in
O.S.No.1035/2014 dated 27.06.2018 by the V Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Belagavi, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 therein have preferred this writ petition.
presumed that plaintiffs did not do the necessary due diligence before mentioning the same as 10.02.2008 and that it is not a typographical error and for that reason, prays for setting aside the impugned order.
the trial Court. For the said reason, the writ petition is
hereby, dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in allowing amendment of the plaint date under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the alleged error in the sale deed date was a typographical mistake or founded on lack of due diligence.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jabarchand S/O. Jain
Naresh S/O. Jabarchand Jain
Pankaj S/O. Babarchand Jain
Godavari W/O. Chougale
Leela W/O. Parashuram Chougale
Sanjay S/O. Gandu Chougale
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
