Allowed

Smt. Manjula v. Shri K.K. Anand Satish

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024WP/22690/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff in an injunction suit challenged rejection of her application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to plead her title trail. The High Court set aside the order, allowed amendment subject to Rs.25,000 costs, and directed expeditious trial disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; plaintiff permitted to amend plaint subject to Rs.25,000 cost to defendants 1-4; defendants may file written statement to amended plaint.

Smt. Manjula Vs Shri K.K. Anand Satish — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9579 WP No. 22690 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 22690 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O K. PRATHAP KUMAR, R/AT NO.193, 15^TH 'B' CROSS, 2^ND PHASE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560086

¶9

REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER SHRI. M.V. BHASKAR REDDY, S/O M.V. SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.193, 15^TH 'B' CROSS, 2^ND PHASE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560086

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally

¶12

signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SHRI K.K. ANAND SATISH S/O LATE P.KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶16

SHRI. K.K. MANJUNATH S/O LATE P.KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶17

SHRI. K.K.VISHWANATH S/O LATE P.KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9579 WP No. 22690 of 2019

¶19

NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT KOUDENAHALLI VILLAGE, DOORAVANINAGAR POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

¶20

SMT. CHANDRIKA W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.203, NARAYANA REDDY LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHYNAGARA, BENGALURU-560016

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.N.GANESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2019 PASSED BY XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-18) ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.2343/2018, WHICH IS PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-Q BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE W.P.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The plaintiff in O.S.No.2343/2018 on the file of XIX

¶27

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru has filed this petition, challenging the correctness of an order

¶28

dated 13.03.2019, by which, an application (I.A.No.2) filed

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:9579 WP No. 22690 of 2019

¶31

by her under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected with cost of Rs.200/-.

¶32

The suit in O.S.No.2343/2018 was filed for

¶33

perpetual injunction in respect of two residential sites. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds.

¶34

When the suit was listed for evidence of the

¶35

parties, an application was filed by the plaintiff to amend the plaint to introduce further facts in support of her case. This application (I.A.No.2) was opposed by the defendants and the Trial Court in terms of the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the suit was for bare injunction and all that the plaintiff had to prove was that as on the date of the suit, she was in possession of the suit properties and that her possession was interfered by the defendants. It therefore, held that the fresh pleadings sought to be brought by way of an amendment was unnecessary. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:9579 WP No. 22690 of 2019

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the suit for injunction was not based on mere possession, but was based on title. He therefore, submits that the plaintiff would have to plead and prove her incidental title to the suit property and therefore, it was necessary that the additional pleadings was permitted to be pleaded. He contends that no admission is sought to be withdrawn and no new case is pleaded and cause of action for the suit would not change if the amendment is allowed. Therefore, he contends that there is no impediment for the Trial Court to allow the application, more particularly, when the evidence is not yet recorded.

¶39

The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 though entered appearance has not appeared. Therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submission.

¶40

A perusal of the reliefs sought for in the suit disclose that the suit was for bare injunction in respect of the site bearing Nos.2 and 3 and the plaintiff claimed title

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9579 WP No. 22690 of 2019

¶42

to the suit property and claimed that she was placed in possession of the suit property.

¶43

By way of an amendment, the plaintiff has merely attempted to clarify the pleadings by pleading the title trail of her vendors. Though this was a suit for injunction, where plaintiff was required to only prove her incidental title to the property and the impetus was more on the possession of the plaintiff as on the date of the suit, yet, since the plaintiff has claimed title to the property and intend to trace the title of her owners, the Trial Court must have allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and permit her to amend the plaint to introduce the additional facts. However, this Court cannot lose its sight of the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2018 and issues are framed in the suit. Long after the issues were framed and case is posted for evidence, the plaintiff woke up and filed the present application. Therefore, the plaintiff had unduly delayed the adjudication of the suit.

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9579 WP No. 22690 of 2019

¶45

In that view of the matter though the plaintiff is

¶46

entitled to the reliefs in this writ petition, the same cannot be granted unconditionally.

¶47

In that view of the matter, the petition is

¶48

allowed and the impugned order dated 13.03.2019 passed by XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint which shall however be subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 on the next date of hearing in equal portion.

¶49

The defendants are entitled to file their written statement to the amended plaint.

¶50

Having regard to the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2018, the Trial Court is requested to dispose off the suit at the earliest which shall at any rate not be

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:9579 WP No. 22690 of 2019

¶53

beyond one year from the date of plaintiff amending the plaint and defendants filing the written statement.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Smt. Manjula v. Shri K.K. Anand Satish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjula v. Shri K.K. Anand Satish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thopaiah Since Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives Sri. Rangaswamy T Vs Smt Sakamma

Shaik Maula Ali Vs P. Anusuya

Mrs Geetha Mani P Shetty Vs Sri Ganesh Bangera

K S Siddagangappa Vs Sri. Kiran Raj L

Sri Venkategowda Vs Sri M Shanthakumar

Haji Monu Vs Mumtaz