Sri Chunchaiah Vs Smt Mahadevamma

SRI VENKATACHALA @ MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SRI VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 97 YEARS R/OF BYRAMANGALA VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶25

SRI G. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE G SUNKAIAH MAJOR R/AT NO.153/186 SRI LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY NILAYA, 6TH A CROSS OMKARNAGARA ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI G.V. DAYANANDA, ADV, FOR R-1 & R-2; V/O/D 02.11.2022, NOTICE TO R-3 & R-4 IS D/W)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2022 ON IA NO.VII IN OS.NO.92/2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,KANAKAPURA AND PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN OS.NO.92/2011 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45004 WP No. 17740 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,KANANAKPURA AS PER THE PLAINT AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by defendant nos.3 to 7 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 01.07.2022 passed on IA.no.7 in O.S.No.92/2011 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kanakapura.

¶36

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶37

O.S.No.92/2011 is filed by respondent nos.1 & 2 herein

¶38

before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Kanakapura seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also for the relief of declaration. In the said suit, defendant no.3 had filed written statement opposing the suit claim. IA.no.7 was filed on behalf of defendant no.3 under

¶39

Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to amend the original written statement by inserting proposed

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45004 WP No. 17740 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

paragraph nos.9(a) to 9(c). The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA.no.7 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

¶43

Perusal of the proposed amendment would go to show that defendant no.3 has sought to oppose the prayer in the suit by raising the ground of limitation, cause of action and pecuniary jurisdiction. The application for proposed amendment is said to have been filed at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence. The proposed amendment does not amount to withdrawing any admission made in the original written statement and it is trite that defendant is entitled to take inconsistent stand in the written statement.

¶44

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALDEV SINGH & OTHERS VS MANOHAR SINGH & ANOTHER - (2006)6 SCC

¶45

498 , has observed that courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:45004 WP No. 17740 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1128 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Courts while dealing with the prayer for amendment of pleadings should avoid a hyper technical approach and are ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

¶50

The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Amendment of pleadings needs to be allowed normally to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The inconvenience caused to the other side, if any, can be compensated monetarily. Under the circumstances, the following order:

¶51

Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.07.2022 passed on IA.no.7 in O.S.No.92/2011 by the Court of Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kanakapura, is set aside. Consequently, IA.no.7 filed in O.S.No.92/2011 is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by defendant no.3

¶52