Sri Srikantham v R Vs Smt Subamma

9(b) SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SUBBAIAHA ALIAS SUBBAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 9(b) RE RESIDING AT LAKKUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 130

¶28

3 -

¶29

9(c) SRI. PREMA LEELAVATHI, W/O NARAYANAPPA, D/O LATE SUBBAIAHA ALIAS SUBBAPPA, RESIDING AT TEKKAL VILLAGE & HOBLI, MALUR TALUK – 563 130.

¶30

9(d) SRI. SRINIVASAIAH, S/O LATE SUBBAIAHA ALIAS SUBBAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKKUR VILLAGE & HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 130

¶31

9(e) SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O LATE SUBBAIAHA ALIAS SUBBAPPA

¶32

SINCE DEAD BY LR’S

¶33

9(e)(i) SMT. BHARATHI, SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶34

9(e)(ii) KUMARI. ASHVINI SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶35

9(e)(iii) KUMAR ANVITHA SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶36

RESPONDENTS 9(e)(i) TO 9(e)(iii) ARE RESIDING AT RATHAN BUILDING, BOMMANAHALLI, BEGUR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶37

4 -

¶38

9(f) SMT. SHAKUNTALA D/O LATE SUBBAIAH ALIAS SUBBAPPA, W/O R. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT PALASANDRA LAYOUT, BEHIND HEALTH OFFICE, KOLAR TALUK – 563 101.

¶39

SMT. THIPPAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶40

SRI. VENKATESH, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S

¶41

D11(a) SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABUT 58 YEARS,

¶42

D11(b) SRI. NAGESH GV S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶43

D11(c) SRI. RAVINDRA BABU, S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶44

RESPONDENT 11(a) TO (c) ARE R/AT GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE, SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK – 563 130.

¶45

SMT. SAMPANGAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶46

SRI. RAMA SUBAPPA, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶47

5 -

¶48

SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶49

SMT. PARVATHAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶50

SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶51

SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,

¶52

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶53

RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 17 ARE R/OF JAGADENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130

¶54

SMT. PAPAMMA, W/O LATE GOPALAPPA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S

¶55

D18(a) SMT. AKKAYAMMA D/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶56

D18(b) SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶57

D18(c) SMT. RAJAMMA D/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶58

6 -

¶59

D18(d) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA

¶60

AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶61

D18(e) SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶62

D18(f) SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶63

D18(g) SMT. NEELAVATHI D/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶64

D18(h) SRI ASHWATHNARAYAN S/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶65

D18(i) SRI. SURESH S/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶66

18(j) SMT. AKKAYAMMA, D/O LATE GOPALAPPA AND SMT. PAPAMMA AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS ,

¶67

RESPONDENT NO.18(a) TO (j) ARE RESIDING AT JAGADENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130

¶68

7 -

¶69

19. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA

¶70

SINCE DEAD BY LR’S

¶71

D19(a) SMT. SWARNALATHA W/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶72

SRI. SHASHIKANTH V.R., S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶73

SRI. VIJAY V.R., S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶74

RESPONDENT NO.19(a), 20 AND 21 ARE RESIDING AT

¶75

NEAR POLICE PARADE GROUND, PRASHANTHANAGAR, M G ROAD, CHICKBALLAPUR – 562 101.

¶76

SMT. SUBAMMA W/O LATE HANUMAPPA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, RESIDENT OF JAGADENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK – 563 130.

¶77

SMT. MANJULA, W/O NARAYANASWAMY ALIAS NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF JAGADENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶78

8 -

¶79

SRI. ABAYA REDDY, S/O ANNAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶80

M. KALLAPPA S/O HOTTEPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶81

RESPONDENT NO.24 AND 25 ARE RESIDING AT JAGADENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130.

¶82

... RESPONDENTS

¶83

(BY SRI. UMESH B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, R8 & R23; (VAKALATH NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF R4) VIDE ORDER DATED 22.09.2021, NOTICE TO R5 TO R7, R9 TO R22, R24 & R25 STANDS WAIVED)

¶84

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2020 ANNEXURE-A, PASSED ON I.A.NO.XXIV ON THE FILE OF O.S.NO.120/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 C.P.C. REJECTING THE APPLICATION SEEKING AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT AND ALLOW THE SAME.

¶85

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶86

9 -

¶87

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶88

CAV ORDER

¶89

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur in O.S.No.120/2013, whereby I.A.No.XXIV filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint came to be dismissed.

¶90

The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs before the trial Court and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

¶91

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶92

The petitioners instituted O.S.No.120/2013 before the

¶93

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Written statements were filed by some of the defendants while others were placed

¶94

ex-parte .

¶95

10 -

¶96

Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was recorded and Defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1. At that stage, petitioners discovered that the respondents had earlier filed O.S.No.246/2005 before the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kolar, which culminated in a compromise decree dated 16.12.2005.

¶97

According to the petitioners, the said decree was collusive, not binding upon them, and came to their knowledge only during the preparation for cross-examination of DW-1. It was further contended that certain confusion crept in while drafting the plaint regarding description of properties, as though six properties were pleaded in the body of the plaint, the schedule described them only as four items. Hence, the petitioners filed I.A.No.XXIV under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment to incorporate the subsequent developments, clarify the pleadings, and remove ambiguity. The said application was opposed by respondents No.1 to 4, 6, 8 and 23 mainly on the ground that it was filed after commencement of trial and therefore not maintainable.

¶98

The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application holding that the prayer was not maintainable and

¶99

11 -

¶100

inter alia observed that the plaintiffs had not complied with certain technical requirements such as use of inverted commas and that the Court could not declare the decree in O.S.No.246/2005 as null and void.

¶101

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment was not intended to introduce a new case or to change the nature of the suit.

¶102

It is also contended that the amendment was sought

¶103

only to clarify the pleadings, to reflect subsequent facts, and to ensure proper adjudication of the controversy and not to add any new properties or change the boundaries of any properties. The petitioners further submit that rejection on mere technical grounds is opposed to settled principles that amendments should ordinarily be liberally allowed in the interest of justice.

¶104

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶105

On hearing the submissions of the counsel for the

¶106

petitioners and perusal of the material on record, it appears that

¶107

12 -

¶108

the trial Court has dismissed the I.As without properly appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioners and respondents and passed the impugned Order without assigning any cogent reasons. Further, dismissal of the application only on technical grounds is opposed to settled principles of law.

¶109

Therefore, the Order dated dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur in I.A.No.XXIV filed in O.S.No.120/2013, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Further, the trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.XXIV within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶110

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed

¶111

of.

¶112

Sd/(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶113

BNV

¶114

CT: UR

Sri Srikantham v. R v Smt Subamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srikantham v. R v Smt Subamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Channaiah Vs Smt T L Susheela

Kempasiddaiah Vs K Karegowda

Smt. Shilpa Y v Vs Mr a Manjunatha

T T Rajesh Vs T N Babu

Smt Munithayamma Vs Sri Anjaneya

M/S. Hdb Financial Services Ltd. Vs M/S. Renown Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.