High Court allowed a writ petition to set aside an impugned order rejecting a defendant's application to amend written statement under CPC to introduce facts distinguishing his vendor from the plaintiffs' late mother.
The impugned order dated 19.11.2022 was set aside and the application for amendment of written statement was allowed.
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 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 217 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. MUTHYALAMMA WIFE OF MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NISHAD S.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DATED 12.06.2023 NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED AN IA FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO. 48/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC , HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE- F. AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
NC: 2024:KHC:46892 WP No. 217 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
Defendant No.3 in O.S.No.48/2012 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hosakote, Bangalore Rural District, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 19.11.2022 by which an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:46892 WP No. 217 of 2023
authorities they realized that defendant No.3 had got his name in the revenue record pursuant to acceptance of M.R.No.37/97-98. The plaintiffs contend that defendant No.3 had concocted a sale deed and laid a false claim to the suit property. Hence, they sought for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and also for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 by defendants No.1 and 2 as null and void.
4.(i) When the suit was set down for cross-examination of the plaintiff-PW1, an application was filed by defendant No.3 for amendment of the written statement to introduce some additional facts to trace the particulars of grant of land in
Hulluru Amanikere village. The facts narrated in the application related to the land bearing Sy.Nos.77, 147, 30, 43 and 70 of Hullur Amanikere village which were Neeraganti and Talavari Inam lands.
(ii) The defendant No.3 claimed that Sy.No.30 was regranted to plaintiff No.1 and his family members and that they sold the lands so regranted to Hanumantha Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.2006. Defendant No.3 also sought to place on record the regrant particulars of the land in Sy.Nos.122 and 12 of Horamavu Agrahara village which was regranted to Muthyalamma and Muthyalappa. Thus, he tried to show that his vendor was Muthyalamma, a different person who was not the mother of the plaintiffs.
which was referred to the jurisdictional police for investigation. The police had registered Cr.No.305/2011 and thereafter submitted a 'B' report stating that the mother of the plaintiffs was not the vendor of defendant No.3. The learned counsel therefore contends that the investigation by the police has revealed the above facts and the same is attempted to be brought on record to non-suit the plaintiffs. He submits that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs if the application is allowed as the flavour of the defence of defendant No.3 has not changed.
NC: 2024:KHC:46892 WP No. 217 of 2023
NC: 2024:KHC:46892 WP No. 217 of 2023
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
TL
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the defendant's application for amendment of written statement.
Whether the additional facts regarding the vendor's identity are relevant and would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI A VENUGOPAL
SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA
SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA
SRI RAMA
SRI. MUTHYALAPPA
SRI NARAYANA SWAMY
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
