Defendant sought amendment of written statement in an injunction suit; trial court rejected I.A.No.5. Court ruled rejection contrary to established principles on amendment of pleadings, set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment.
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: 2024:KHC:16087 WP No. 2146 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI N MURARI S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO 22/A, OPP TO KER OFFICE CHANAKYA LAYOUT NAGAVARA BANGALORE 560 045.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MITHUN G A.,ADVOCATE) AND:
Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. SUSHEELA, W/O BASAVARAJ R/AT NO 123/A, 3RD CROSS A G B LAOUT, 2ND STAGE MAHALAKSHMIPUR LAYOUT BANGALORE 566 086.
(BY SRI. RAVI T G.,ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08/01/2024 PASSED IN OS NO. 25645/2020, BY THE COURT OF 74TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL, BAGNALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAID I.A. NO. 5 IN OS NO. 25645/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.25645/2020 on the file of the 74th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.5 whereby the said application filed by the petitioner – defendant under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was rejected by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:16087 WP No. 2146 of 2024
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed .
(ii) The impugned order dated 08.01.2024 in O.S.No.25645/2020 on the file of the 74th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.
(iii) I.A.No.5 for amendment filed by petitioner, is hereby allowed.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent – plaintiff to file reply / rejoinder to the amended written statement.
(v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
(vi) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
Sd/JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Should the amendment application (I.A.No.5) to amend the defendant's written statement be allowed despite the trial court's rejection?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs Narayanaswamy & Sons & OthersRelied on¶4
Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs Narayanaswamy & Sons & Others
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs K.K. ModiRelied on¶4
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors – AIR 2006 SC 164 · Who else cites this
Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private LimitedRelied on¶4
Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors – AIR 2022 SC 4256 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri N Murari
Smt. Susheela
S.R.Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
