Partly allowed

B P Santhosh v. Veerabhadra Shetty

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2023WP/57299/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226, allowed the petition partly and set aside the lower court's order that rejected a plaint amendment application. The court held the amendment sought to restrict the suit area was not barred by laches and called for the trial to be considered liberally regarding amendments to the description of suit property.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.10.2016 rejecting the amendment application was set aside, and the application (I.A. no.VII) was allowed.

B P Santhosh Vs Veerabhadra Shetty — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:19196 WP No. 57299 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 57299 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

B.P. SANTHOSH, S/O LATE B.A. PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶7

B.P. AJITH, S/O LATE B.A. PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶8

BOTH ARE R/AT KANAGUPPE VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 101.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

[BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR A.S., ADV., FOR SRI. S.T. RAJASHEKARA, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

VEERABHADRA SHETTY, S/O CHENNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

K.G. KUMAR, S/O GANGAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶15

DEVARAJ, S/O SIDDALINGA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶16

K.Y. GOPAL, S/O YELLAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶17

K.N. RANGANATH, S/O NANJUNDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:19196 WP No. 57299 of 2016

¶20

ALL ARE R/OF KANAGUPPE VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S.V. SHANMUKHA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5)

¶23

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.10.2016 IN O.S.NO.4/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, BELUR AT ANNEXURE-A ON APPLICATION DATED 16.9.2015 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AS WELL AS THIS W.P. AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Challenging impugned order dated 25.10.2016

¶27

(Annexure-A) passed by Civil Judge, Belur, in O.S.no.4/2015, on I.A.no.VII filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, this writ petition is filed.

¶28

Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.no.4/2015 filed for relief of permanent injunction against defendants in respect of suit property granted to petitioner's father by Tahsildar, Belur, in year 1959-60. After death of petitioner's father, when defendant attempted to interfere with plaintiffs' possession, suit was filed.

¶29

After appearance, defendants filed written

¶30

statement, stating that 09 acres 24 guntas of land granted to petitioner's father earlier belonged to them and in year 1962

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:19196 WP No. 57299 of 2016

¶33

petitioner's father had illegally got it granted without their knowledge and also obtained khata. Thereafter he did not comply with conditions of grant. They denied plaintiff was growing coffee or pepper in said land.

¶34

It was submitted that immediately after filing of written statement, plaintiff filed application for amendment seeking to add particulars of crops that were being grown prior to planting coffee and total extent granted, about utilization of portion of area for development of road and for restricting extent of land over which relief was sought.

¶35

But, trial Court illegally rejected same on reasoning that in suit for injunction proper description of suit property would be vital and attempt by plaintiffs to amend description would introduce contradiction and hence application did not deserve consideration. Further amendment sought was after rejection of plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction on ground of incorrect description of suit property. And as application was not filed immediately, allowing it would permit plaintiff to rectify mistake causing prejudice to defendant.

¶36

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and writ petition record.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:19196 WP No. 57299 of 2016

¶39

On perusal of Annexure - A, it is seen that suit was filed during January 2015 and written statement was filed by defendants on 12.01.2015. Application for amendment was filed on 28.07.2015, about 6 months after filing of written statement. Further, to a specific query, learned counsel for petitioners stated that application was filed before recording of evidence.

¶40

Hence, application does not suffer from laches and is filed before commencement of evidence. Further amendment sought is for addition of particulars. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another¹

¶41

that all applications for amendment are to be considered liberally and unless amendment sought would change nature of suit etc., same has to be allowed/ granted.

¶42

Reason assigned by trial Court that there would be change in identity of suit property would not be correct as amendment sought is to restrict area with regard to which relief is sought and same is sought prior to commencement of trial, wherein defendants would have sufficient opportunity. In

¶43

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:19196 WP No. 57299 of 2016

¶46

result, order impugned would be contrary to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence unsustainable.

¶47

Consequently, writ petition is allowed in part, impugned order dated 25.10.2016 (Annexure-A) passed by Civil Judge, Belur, in O.S.no.4/2015, on I.A.no.VII filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, is set aside. Said I.A.no.VII, stands allowed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Psg*

B P Santhosh v. Veerabhadra Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B P Santhosh v. Veerabhadra Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. S. K. Ramareddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ravindra Adyanthaya Vs Mrs. Jayanthi Adyanthaya

Sri. Yellappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Lakshmaiah Vs Lakshmamma

D. T. Manjunath Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri. Y Rajanna, Vs the Executive Engineer(Ele)