2024:KHC:24003 WP No. 14511 of 2024 IN THE…
Liberty reserved to petitioner to file a fresh amendment application before the trial court with proper reasons.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.14511 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANGADI SOMASHEKAR CHANNABASAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT HUNNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 064.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R.7.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN O.S.NO.163/2015 ON I.A.NO.22 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
"8. By way of proposed amendment, the plaintiff seeks inclusion of pleadings about not less than 8 Sale Deeds and 2 G.P.A.s by alleging them as forged Sale Deeds and the plaintiff seeks them to be declared as forged and null and void. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 24.02.2015 and the relief
NC: 2024:KHC:24003 WP No. 14511 of 2024
sought by him is to declare the G.P.A.s dated 28.03.1998, 31.08.1998 and Sale Deeds dated 07.09.2002 are not binding on him. In the entire plaint averments, the plaintiff has not stated about the alleged 8 bogus Sale Deeds executed after the death of the Tontadarya S/o. H.S. Virupakshaiah and Smt. Lalithamma. The suit was filed for Declaration and as on the date of filing the I.A.No.22, the case was posted for cross examination of the PW.1 on 22.09.2022 itself. Ordinarily, while filing any amendment application a party is required to convince the Court about his due diligence. But, the same averments are lacking in this I.A.NO.22, as the plaintiff simply deposes on oath that, he has traced out two important documents to be produced in evidence and therefore, he has filed the application for amendment of plaint. Therefore, without showing any valid reasons for proposed amendment, the plaintiff fails to make out any case to permit him to amend the plaint. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the Negative."
1908 reads as under:
"17. Amendment of Pleadings: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on
such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
AFFIDAVIT
"I, Mohsin Shariff, son of Late Dr. A.M. Shariff aged about 58 years resident of Sy.No.32 and 33, Sonnappanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North-562 157 on Solemn affirmation states follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:24003 WP No. 14511 of 2024
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the annexed application in the ends of justice.
This is my name and signature, I verify and state what is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief."
has not expressed any opinion as to how the application
has to be considered by the trial Court in case a new application is to be made by the petitioner.
Sd/JUDGE
VMB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint satisfied the due-diligence requirement of Order VI Rule 17 CPC after trial commenced.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Mohsin Sharieff
Sri N Ramesh
Smt Kamini R Ramnani
Smt R M Lalithamma
Smt H V Gayathri Devi
Sri H V Sanath Kumar
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
