Allowed

Ashok v. Savita and Ors.

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024WP/201285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the rejection of an application to amend a written statement in a partition suit. The High Court set aside the lower court's order, holding that the proposed amendment was intended to elaborate existing contentions rather than withdraw admissions, and allowed the amendment with liberty to file replies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order rejecting amendment set aside; amendment allowed with liberty to respondents to file replies.

Ashok Vs Savita and Ors. — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9649 WP No. 201285 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.201285/2024(GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ASHOK S/O. LATE SETU MADAVARAO KULKARNI, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.STRT/13/17, 14^TH CROSS, GE POWER INDIA LTD. COLONY SHAHABAD, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585229. (BY SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SAVITA D/O. SETU MADHAVRAO (W/O. GURURAJ) AGE 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KHANADAL VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.702, 6^TH FLOOR, MANDOLLI ROAD, ZENETH BUILDING, LOTUS COUNTRY, TILAKWADI BELAGAVI-590001.

¶14

SMT. PUSHPAVATI W/O. LATE SETU MADHAVRAO KULKARNI, AGE 81 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9649 WP No. 201285 of 2024

¶16

R/O. KONCHUR. TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585211.

¶17

RANGANATH S/O. SETU MADHAVRAO, AGE 59 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL MANAGER IN JINDAL STEEL WORKS, BELLARY RESIDENT OF M-4/8, JSW TOWNSHIP VIDYANAGAR, TORANGAL, TQ. SANDUR DIST. BELLARY-583123.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(R1 & R2-SERVED; R3-V/O DATED 12.07.2024 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITOIN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.01.2024 ON I.A. NO.XII FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHITTAPUR, VIDE ANNEXUREF AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶25

This petition by defendant No.1 in O.S.

¶26

No.19/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chittapur, (for short ‘Trial Court’), is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A. No.XII, whereby, the said

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9649 WP No. 201285 of 2024

¶28

application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶30

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs having been served with notice of this petition, have chosen to remain unrepresented and not contested the present petition.

¶31

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted the aforesaid suit against petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.3defendant No.2 for partition and separate possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. In the said suit, in addition to filing the written statement contesting the suit, the petitioner-defendant No.1 also put forth the counter claim, which was in turn opposed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs. After commencement of trial, the petitioner filed the instant

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9649 WP No. 201285 of 2024

¶33

application I.A. No.XII seeking amendment of the written statement by incorporating certain additional facts. The said application having been opposed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶34

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that by way of proposed amendment, the petitioner seeks to withdraw certain admissions made by him in the written statement. In this context, when the proposed amendment is read in conjunctions with the written statement filed by defendant No.1/petitioner herein, it is clear that no such admission made by the petitioner which is sought to be withdrawn by way of the proposed amendment, which needs merely seeks to elaborate and amplify the contentions already put

¶35

forth in the written statement. Under these

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9649 WP No. 201285 of 2024

¶37

circumstances, in the light of the principles governing amendment of pleadings as enunciated in the case of LIC

¶38

Vs. Sanjeev Builders, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1128, which is reiterated as well in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman AGarwal (Bindal) and others, reported in 2024 INSC 726, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and application for amendment deserves to be allowed.

¶39

6. In the result, the following:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶42

ii) The impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed in O.S. No.19/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chittapur, rejecting I.A. No.XII filed by the

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9649 WP No. 201285 of 2024

¶44

petitioner is hereby set aside. I.A.

¶45

No.XII stands allowed.

¶46

iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents-plaintiffs to file replies/pleadings to the amended written statement filed by the

¶47

petitioner.

¶48

iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the amended pleadings are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶49

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶50

SBS

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Ashok v. Savita and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok v. Savita and Ors.

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

Aswath @ Aswathram Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Anr.

Sri Nanagouda Biradar Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Al Ameen Medical College and Hospital Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.

Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Siddaram Gunari and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Mahananda Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.