Defendant challenged a Trial Court order allowing the plaintiff's second application to amend the plaint to reflect a release deed and subsequent sale of part of the suit property. The High Court held the amendments merely placed on record subsequent events without altering the suit's nature or cause of action and dismissed the petition.
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 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.2417 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SARASWATHI WIFE OF MUNISWAMI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT SITE BEARING NO.353, 23RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, KALYANANAGAR POST, HBR LAYOUT, NAGAWARA BANGALORE-560043
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. HEENA S.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH S GOGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNABASAPPA S.N., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S. NO.7342/2012, ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
NC: 2024:KHC:45763 WP No. 2417 of 2023
17.01.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) INTERIM APPLICATION (IA NO.6), IN O.S.NO. 7342/2012, ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-26). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendant in O.S.No.7342/2012 on the file of X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) has filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 17.01.2023 by which, I.A.No.VI filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:45763 WP No. 2417 of 2023
application was allowed in terms of the order dated 28.11.2022. The plaintiff No.2 again filed another application (I.A.No.VI) to amend the plaint which was again allowed by the impugned order dated 17.01.2023.
NC: 2024:KHC:45763 WP No. 2417 of 2023
contends that the suit had to be suitably amended in view of the written statement filed by the defendant. It is contended that during the pendency of the suit, a family arrangement took place between the members of the family, in terms of which, a release deed dated 30.10.2015 was executed. As a result, the plaintiff No.1 along with his family members released their share in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff No.2 and the said fact also had to be brought on record. It is also contended that after execution of such release deed, the plaintiff No.2 had sold site No.7 in favour of Mr. A Jagadish and had retained site No.6. This too was a relevant fact and the same had to be brought on record. He therefore contended that the suit which was originally filed in respect of 02 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No.80/3 had to be properly described as site No.6 in Sy.No.80/3. He contends that without these essential facts, the suit could not have been proceeded with and could not be effectively adjudicated.
NC: 2024:KHC:45763 WP No. 2417 of 2023
writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing amendment of the plaint to record post-suit events including a release deed and sale, without changing the nature of the suit or cause of action?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Saraswathi
Sri. N. Vishwanath
Sri. Muniraju N.
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
