This is a short order dismissing a writ petition challenging a trial court's rejection of an application to amend a written statement. The single-judge bench held the petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
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 DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 50334 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y.K.NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 19.11.2018, COPY SERVED ON SRI. O.SATHISHBHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS BEFORE TRIAL COURT (VK NOT FILED);
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3, 4 AND 5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.502/2008 ON IA NO.XXVI PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU AT ANNEXURE-A.
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 Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.502/2008 on the
file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru
NC: 2024:KHC:51417 WP No. 50334 of 2018
(henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) is before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 30.10.2018 by which an application (I.A.No.XXVI) filed by them under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.
(ii) The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.5 and 6. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 denied the averments of the plaint and claimed that they had thoroughly scrutinized the title of their vendors and that after being satisfied about the title of their vendors, they had purchased the property.
(iii) The defendant Nos.5 and 6 contended that their propositus and the propositus of the plaintiffs were brothers and they possessed the land in Sy.No.284/4 of Hinkal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The defendant No.4 being the son of Mr.Sannegowda and defendant Nos.5 and 6 being the sons of Mr.Chinnamayi Gowda, were cultivating 23.5 guntas, 10.5 guntas and 13 guntas respectively. The defendant No.4 who realized that there was a demand for residential sites, got his
extent of 23.5 guntas of land converted for non-agricultural purposes. He also formed a road on the western portion of his holding and this road separated the property of the defendant Nos.5 and 6. It was contended that on the north - eastern side of the entire land, sites were formed and khathas were made out. The defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 had conveyed the sites to various purchasers. They contended that the plaintiff did not have any subsisting right, title and interest in the suit property and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(iv) When the suit was listed for evidence of the defendants, an application was filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to amend the written statement again to contend about the transactions entered into by them in respect of the property in question. This application was opposed by the plaintiff who claimed that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were attempting to duplicate the pleadings. It was contended that the amendment sought to be inserted by way of an amendment was already on record in the written statement filed by defendant Nos.5 and 6.
(v) The Trial Court after perusing the amendment sought for by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.5 and 6 was of the
opinion that the application was unnecessary, but it was an attempt to place on record the pleadings that were already pleaded in the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.5 and 6.
Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.
counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
dismissed.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
Sri. Kumaraswamy and Others
Sri. S.K. Srinivasa and Others
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
