Basavaraj S/O Hanumantappa Bidari Vs Smt. Savita W/O Kkrishnamurthi N.

SMT. SAVITA W/O KRISHNAMURTHI N., AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NOW AT C/O. K.M. RAJGOPAL, BETTADASPURA, NEAR ELECTRONIC CITY, BEHIND CHURCH, BENGALURU.

¶14

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

PRABHAKAR S/O BASAPPA BADIGER, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NOW AT C/O: MAIDURU BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, BANASHANKARI NAGAR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶16

SMT. VIMALA W/O PRABHAKAR BADIGER, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, TQ: SADHAR, DIST: SADHAR.

¶17

KAVITA D/O PRABHAKAR BADIGER, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: SCHOOL TEACHER, TQ: DEVDURGA, DIST: RAICHUR.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6312 WP No. 107406 of 2017

¶20

5. RAGHAVENDRA

¶21

S/O PRABHAKAR BADIGER, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER, R/O: RANEBENNUR KSRTC DEPOT MAGOD, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALAWAI AND SRI. M.B. RADDI, ADVOCATES FOR R1; SRI. VEERESH S.GADAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 AND R4; MISS FARHA NAAZ A.DARAGA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANT S.KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vidyashankar G.Dalawai and Sri.M.B.Raddi., counsel for respondent No.1, Sri.Veeresh S.Gadad., counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and Ms.Farha Naaz A.Daraga., counsel on behalf of Sri.Prashant S.Kadadevar., for respondent No.5 have appeared in person.

¶28

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur on I.A. No.9 in O.S. No.139/2015 vide Annexure-E.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6312 WP No. 107406 of 2017

¶31

Counsel for the respective parties urged several

¶32

contentions.

¶33

Counsel Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta., in presenting his arguments submits that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to submit her statement of objections to the amendment application. He drew the attention of the Court to the impugned order to contend that the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons and permitted defendant No.4 to amend the written statement. Counsel therefore, submits an appropriate order may be passed.

¶34

Counsel for the respondents justified the order of the Trial Court.

¶35

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

¶36

with care.

¶37

The suit is one of partition and separate possession. After issuance of suit summons, defendant No.4 filed written statement. However, he filed an application to amend the written statement on 23.08.2016. The plaintiff contends that opportunity was not accorded for her to submit the statement of objections to the amendment application. A perusal of the

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6312 WP No. 107406 of 2017

¶40

impugned order reflects that except for stating that no prejudice will be caused to the other parties, reasons are not assigned by the Trial Court in permitting defendant No.4 to amend the written statement. The law is well settled that whenever any applications are filed, an opportunity must be accorded for the other party to submit the statement of objections, if any. A perusal of the order sheet depicts that plaintiff was not given an opportunity to submit the statement of objections. Hence, the matter requires a remand and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The Trial Court is directed to accord an opportunity for the plaintiff to file the statement of objections to the amendment application. If the statement of objections are filed by the plaintiff the same must be considered and then proceed further in the matter.

¶41

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur on I.A.No.9 in O.S. No.139/2015 vide Annexure-E is quashed.

¶42