Sri. Venkatesh @ Venkateshappa Vs Smt. Gundamma

SRI. JETTAPPA, S/O SRI. MUNICHIKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, S/O MUNIVENKATAMMA, NO.85, MADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 089.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. R. MUKUND FOR SRI. T. K. RAJAGOPAL FOR R1, ADVOCATES, R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, V/O/DATED 03.06.2025 NOTICE TO R1(A-F) ARE H/S)

¶42

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5.4.2018 PASSED ON I.A. UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.6626/2011 BY THE IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.

¶43

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.04.2018 passed on an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) in

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25541 WP No. 23117 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

O.S.No.6626/2011, pending on the file of IX Additional City

¶50

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶51

Heard.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the petitioners. The parties have adduced the evidence and thereafter the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement, which came to be rejected by trial court solely on the ground that the application was filed after the trial commenced. It is submitted that the proposed amendment would neither cause any prejudice to the other side, nor would it take away the admissions of the parties recorded in the evidence. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is only a clarificatory to what is stated in the written statement. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶53

Per contra, Sri.R.Mukund, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of respondent No.1, submits that the writ petition is of the year 2018 and the suit filed by the respondent No.1 is of the year 2011. Due to the pendency of this

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25541 WP No. 23117 of 2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

proceedings before this court, the trial court has not proceeded further with the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition by allowing the petitioner-defendant to amend the written statement, so that he will take appropriate steps to contest the pending suit.

¶57

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents. Meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

¶58

The respondent No.1/Gundamma filed O.S.No.6626/2011 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession with regard to the suit schedule property. The original plaintiff/the respondent No.1 has died during the pendency of the proceedings. The pleading and material on record indicates that the petitioners had filed a written statement, adduced the evidence and later filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC, seeking to amend the written statement. The perusal of the proposed amendment indicates that the petitioners/defendants are

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:25541 WP No. 23117 of 2018

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

elaborating the written statement already filed with reference to the survey numbers and revenue records and denies the case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

¶63

In my considered view, the proposed amendment would not cause any harm or prejudice to the respondent No.1/plaintiff, nor does it take away the admissions. It is only in the form of clarification to the written statement already on record. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff has expressed that he has no objection to allow the said application. Considering the aforesaid fact, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶64

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, insists that a positive direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of 3 months. In my considered view, no such mandamus can be issued to the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court would take into account, the case flow management before it and is at liberty to consider the age of the suit and take appropriate decisions, in accordance with law.

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25541 WP No. 23117 of 2018

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

ORDER

¶68

This writ petition is allowed .

¶69

Impugned order dated 05.04.2018 passed on an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC, passed in O.S.No.6626/2011 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶70

Consequently, interlocutory application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with section 151 of CPC, seeking for the amendment of the written statement, is allowed.

¶71

No orders as to the costs.

¶72

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶73

AKV

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri. Venkatesh @ Venkateshappa v. Smt. Gundamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkatesh @ Venkateshappa v. Smt. Gundamma

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

B N Venkatesh Vs Smt Kamalamma

Sri. M.C. Suresh Vs M/S Comfort Shelters Private Ltd.

Sri a M Nagaraju Vs Sri G Umashankar

Mr Richard Hilary Quardras Vs Smt Jagadish Maroli

Sri Prateek Kumar Vs Sri K Muniraju

North Bangalore Education Trust Vs Mr K C Venkatesh