Petitioners sought to quash rejection of their Order VI Rule 17 CPC application to substitute the suit schedule property in a partition suit. The High Court found no infirmity, noted the plaintiffs' liberty to withdraw the suit and file afresh, 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 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 4995 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
S/O SURESHRAO AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O MARASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA-577 202.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATISH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GOPAL K.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER ON I.A.NO.XI PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BHADRAVATHI, IN O.S.NO.201/2013 DATED 05.01.2021 ANNEXURE-G BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the petition at length, submits that the petitioners may be granted liberty to file an application before the Trial Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Bhadravathi (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 2/3rd share in respect of a residential site. When the suit was set down for arguments, an application (I.A. No.XI) was filed under
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC., to replace the suit schedule property with another property. Therefore, there was a
clear defect in the suit filed by the plaintiffs and therefore, the application (I.A. No.XI) was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. It is this order, which is impugned in this petition.
rejected the application for amendment and since the plaintiff has sought for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court correctly rejected the application to amend the plaint by substituting the suit schedule property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh S/o Sureshrao
Rajesh S/o Sureshrao
Sureshrao S/o Late Dhamojirao
Smt. Gopamma W/o Kodandarao
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
