Allowed

M N Ramesh v. Sri S Mukesh

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2023WP/6640/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order permitting amendment of Statement of Objections. High Court allowed petition, quashing the order as amendment was filed post-evidence without establishing reasonable difficulty, noting petitioners had already recovered possession of similar properties.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the civil court order dated 02.01.2019 permitting the respondent's application for amendment of Statement of Objections.

M N Ramesh Vs Sri S Mukesh — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:29228 WP No. 6640 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.6640 OF 2019 (HRC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M N RAMESH

¶10

S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶11

SMT J SUJATHA W/O M N RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA, 5^TH CROSS, BANDIGOWDA EXTENSION, MANDYA, PIN CODE - 571401.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. MANU N P.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI S MUKESH S/O C SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.1633, 100 FT ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. H.RAMANJANAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:29228 WP No. 6640 of 2019

¶23

ORDER DATED 02.01.2019 MADE ON I.A.NO.NIL, FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17, IN H.R.C.NO.1/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MANDYA, VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is by the petitioners in HRC.No.1/2014 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya [ for short 'civil Court' ]. The petitioners are aggrieved by the civil Court's order dated 02.01.2019, and the civil Court by this order has permitted the respondent to amend his Statement of Objections. The petitioners have filed their petition under Sections 27(2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

¶27

According to the petitioners, they have purchased the subject property from the respondent and subsequently, in the month of July 2008 they have inducted the respondent in possession of the schedule property as a tenant with he agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- and refundable deposit

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:29228 WP No. 6640 of 2019

¶30

amount of Rs.25,000. The respondent has accordingly continued to pay rents without dispute until the month of February 2013 but committed default thereafter and hence, they have issued notice dated 24.06.2014 terminating the lease. The respondent has filed Statement of Objections denying the jural relationship and alleging that the petitioners, who are illegal money lenders, have obtained a fraudulent sale deed in their favour.

¶31

After the petitioners have examined their witness and before completion of the crossexamination of these witnesses, the respondent has filed the present application for amendment. The respondent in filing this application for amendment wants to contend for the first time that the petitioners have mis-described the subject property in mentioning that their possession extends upto 100 ft road on the northern side of the property, and to contend that the petitioners have commenced

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:29228 WP No. 6640 of 2019

¶34

proceedings in O.S.No.409/2014 and O.S.No.410/2014 for ejectment of the tenants of commercial shops in the southern portion of the subject property

¶35

The civil Court has observed that the application for amendment is filed after the petitioners’ witnesses' examination-in-chief is completed and the amendment could be allowed only if proposed amendments are necessary for determination of the real controversy between the parties. However, the civil Court has allowed the respondent’s application opining that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the cause or initiate a fresh cause of action.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 28.01.2017 in O.S.No.409/2014 and the order dated 08.09.2022 in W.P.No.6639/2019. Insofar as the suit in O.S.No.410/2014, it is placed on record to

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:29228 WP No. 6640 of 2019

¶38

buttress the submission that both the suits have culminated in favour of the petitioners, and they have recovered the possession of the corresponding properties from the respective tenants. He submits that these circumstances demonstrate that the proposed amendment would not be necessary for the adjudication of real controversy.

¶39

Insofar as the respondent's case that the petitioners have mis-described the subject property, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that application is filed after the evidence is commenced and the civil Court could not have allowed the application unless the respondent establishes due diligence as required under the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., and the respondent has not established due diligence much less reasonable diligence in setting up the defense earlier.

¶40

There is considerable force in both these

¶41

submissions. If the petitioner has already recovered

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:29228 WP No. 6640 of 2019

¶44

possession of the premises that are subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.409/2014 and O.S.No.410/2014, the pleadings in this regard would not be necessary for adjudication of the real controversy viz ., whether the respondent must be evicted from the subject property. In any event unless material is brought on record to justify the conclusion of reasonable difficulty in proposing the amendment before commencement of the evidence, the civil Court could not have allowed the application. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition must be allowed quashing the civil Court's impugned order and rejecting the application. Hence, the following

¶45

ORDER

¶46

This petition is allowed, and the civil

¶47

Court's order dated 02.01.2019 is quashed rejecting the respondent’s application for amendment of his Statement of

¶48

Objections. The petitioners are reserved

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:29228 WP No. 6640 of 2019

¶51

liberty to make necessary prayers before the Civil Court for expeditious disposal of

¶52

the petition.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

M N Ramesh v. Sri S Mukesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M N Ramesh v. Sri S Mukesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nebula 3D Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Svc Tech Ventures LLP

Sri. Srinivasa Vs Sri. K. J. Narayana

L Ramakrishna Vs Smt. N Pushpanjali

Sri P N Narsimha Murthy Vs the Additional Commissioner for Transport and Secretary, Ksta

Sri Shivakumaraswamiji Vs Smt. Nagarathnamma

M/S Rosemarry International Company Vs the Director of Agricultural Marketing