Allowed

Shri N Murari v. Smt. Shantha Kumari

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2024WP/2152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant's writ petition challenging rejection of his application to amend the written statement in an injunction suit. The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order, allowed the amendment, permitted the plaintiff to file a rejoinder, and directed expeditious disposal of the suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.01.2024 set aside; I.A.No.5 allowing amendment of written statement granted; plaintiff free to file rejoinder; suit to be disposed of expeditiously.

Shri N Murari Vs Smt. Shantha Kumari — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:16088 WP No. 2152 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2152 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI N. MURARI S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.22/A OPP. TO KER OFFICE CHANAKYA LAYOUT, NAGARAVARA BENGALURU – 560 045

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MITHUN G. A., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI W/O. G.B. CHIKKON AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RA/T 747, 2^ND CROSS 1^ST MAIN, VYALIKAVAL BENGALURU – 560 003

¶11

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. RAVI T.G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25640/2020, BY THE COURT OF 74^TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL (CCH-75) AT BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAID IA NO.5 IN OS NO. 25640/2020.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:16088 WP No. 2152 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.25640/2020 on the file of the 74^th 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.

¶19

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner – defendant, after commencement of a trial, the petitioner – defendant filed the instant application seeking permission to amend the written statement by invoking additional pleadings at Para 14(a), 22(a), 22(b) in support of his defence. The said application having been opposed by the respondent – plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner – defendant is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:16088 WP No. 2152 of 2024

¶21

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has come to erroneous conclusion that the amendment was not necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties.

¶22

In my considered opinion, the aforesaid finding recorded by the Trial Court while rejecting the amended application is contrary to well settled provisions of law governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs Narayanaswamy & Sons & Others, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors – AIR 2006 SC 164 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors – AIR 2022 SC 4256. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the respondentplaintiff would have an opportunity to file rejoinder reply to the amended written statement, I am of the considered opinion that apart from the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent – plaintiff if the amendment was allowed, rejection of the amendment application by passing the impugned order has clearly occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶23

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:16088 WP No. 2152 of 2024

¶24

In the result, I pass the following:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶27

(ii) The impugned order dated 08.01.2024 in O.S.No.25640/2020 on the file of the 74^th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶28

(iii) I.A.No.5 for amendment filed by petitioner, is hereby allowed.

¶29

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent – plaintiff to file reply / rejoinder to the amended written statement.

¶30

(v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶31

(vi) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶32

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

¶33

Sd/JUDGE