Sri M Lakshmeesha Vs Smt. M Gowramma

1a. DR. CHANNAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS HUSBAND OF LATE M. GOWRAMMA R/AT NO.726, 9^TH MAIN ROAD 1^ST STAGE, II BLOCK HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 043

¶24

1b. SMT. HARINI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O CHANNAKRISHNAPPA R/AT NO.726, 9^TH MAIN ROAD 1^ST STAGE, II BLOCK HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶25

1c. SMT. MONIKA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/O DR. CHANNAKRISHNAPPA. RESIDING AT NO.726 9^TH MAIN ROAD, 1^ST STAGE 2^ND BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶26

SRI M. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE N MUNIYAPPA R/AT MARUTHI NILAYA NO.5115 13TH CROSS FIRST TEMPLE STREET MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶27

SRI B.R. VINOD AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O B.V. RAMACHANDRAPPA R/AT MADHURE, MADHURE OBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44825 WP No. 3947 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

SMT. ANNAMMA JOHNSON AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O PUTHENCHIRA JOHNSON R/AT FLAT NO.204 RAHEJA GARENIA 38 MILLERS ROAD BENSON TOWN OFFICE BANGALORE -560 046.

¶31

M/S NUNHEMS INDIA PVT LTD NO.16 1ST A MAIN YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶32

SMT. M. NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O SRI M.V. MANJUNATH R/AT NO.128, 1^ST MAIN ROAD BETWEEN 7^TH AND 8^TH CROSS CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE - 560 018.

¶33

SRI M. NARASIMHA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O ESHWARA RAO R/AT KANASAVAADI VILLAGE MADURE HOBLI DODDBALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶34

SRI DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O CHANDRAPPA R/AT MARASANDRA VILLAGE MADURE HOBLI DODDBALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶35

SRI B. PRABHU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O G BABU R/AT NO.53 2ND MAIN RAMACHANDRAPURAM BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44825 WP No. 3947 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

SMT. B. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O G BABU R/AT NO.53/1 2ND MAIN RAMACHANDRAPURAM BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶39

SMT. B SHIVANTHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O G BABU R/AT NO.53 2ND MAIN RAMACHANDRAPURAM BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶40

SRI G BABU AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O GOVNDASWAMY R/AT NO.160 2ND MAIN RAMACHANDRAPURAM BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶41

SRI A IMMANUEL PRABHU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O J P AGARIALS WINSTON R/AT NO.1121/B1 2ND CROSS VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶42

SMT. SHOBHA IMMANUEL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O A IMMANUEL PRABHU R/AT NO.1121/B1 2ND CROSS VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA H.V, ADV, FOR R-1 (a) TO R-1 (c); V/O/D 28.03.2022, NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-4 IS D/W)

¶45

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-12) ON I.A.NO.19 IN O.S.1089/2010 I.E., ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS I.A.NO.19 FILED BY THE R1 IN THE COURT BELOW IN

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:44825 WP No. 3947 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

O.S.1089/2010 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 CPC (I.E, ANNEXURE-C)

¶50

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

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

Defendant nos.1, 3 & 4 are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.12.2021 passed on IA.no.19 in O.S.No.1089/2010 by the Court of XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶54

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶55

Suit in O.S.No.1089/2010 is filed before the jurisdictional

¶56

Civil Court at Bengaluru, initially for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, and also for mesne profits. An additional prayer was subsequently incorporated in the plaint to declare that the sale deed dated 14.05.2007, 24.09.2007, 24.09.2007 & 21.02.2008 are not binding on the plaintiffs.

¶57

The contesting defendants have filed a detailed written statement and opposed the suit claim. The original written

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44825 WP No. 3947 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

statement filed by the defendants was amended and an additional written statement is also filed by the contesting defendants in the present case.

¶61

IA.no.19 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by incorporating paragraph nos.22(a) & 22(b) immediately after paragraph 22, and a prayer was also made to amend the suit schedule property and prayer col.no.3 in the plaint by incorporating additional prayers. The contesting defendants had filed objections to IA.no.19 and had opposed the prayer made in the said application.

¶62

The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed IA.no.19 subject to costs of Rs.2,000/-, and being aggrieved by the same, defendant nos.1, 3 & 4 are before this Court.

¶63

Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that in the original written statement which was filed in the year 2011 itself, it is stated about the execution of the gift deed dated 10.05.2006 in respect of the property bearing No.69/2 totally measuring 3

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44825 WP No. 3947 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

acres 4 guntas which is situated at Junnasandra village, Doddaballapura Taluk, which is item no.54 of the suit schedule property. Application seeking amendment of the prayer made in the plaint by incorporating a prayer to declare the aforesaid gift deed as null and void is made after a period of 14 years which is barred by limitation. He submits that in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, since the plaintiffs had not proved their due diligence, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing IA.no.19.

¶67

Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submits that after the prayer to amend the plaint was granted, additional written statement is already filed by the contesting defendants and a issue with regard to limitation in respect of the amended prayer is already framed. The parties have led evidence even on the additional issue framed regarding limitation. Therefore, at this stage, this Court need not consider the question of limitation in seeking amendment to the plaint. He submits that in so far as the other prayers are concerned, they relate to the subsequent events which had taken place during the pendency of the suit, wherein in violation of the

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44825 WP No. 3947 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

interim order passed in the suit, the contesting defendants had created third party rights in respect of certain suit schedule properties. Therefore, it is necessary to bring the same on record and seek necessary relief with regard to the transactions made by the contesting defendants during the pendency of the suit.

¶71

Perusal of the proposed paragraphs which is sought to be incorporated in the plaint would go to show that in paragraph no.22(a), the fact about execution of the gift deed dated 10.05.2006 is stated and in paragraph no.22(b), the fact about the defendant executing certain documents creating third party rights in respect of certain items of suit schedule property in violation of the interim order passed in the suit is mentioned. Certain additional prayers are also sought to be incorporated and the first additional prayer relates to the challenge to the gift deed dated 10.05.2006 and the remaining additional prayers relate to the gift deed and sale deed executed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit in violation of the interim order passed in the suit.

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44825 WP No. 3947 of 2022

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

It is brought to the notice of this Court that after IA.no.19 was allowed, necessary amendment has been carried out in the plaint and the contesting defendants have already filed additional written statement raising the plea of limitation with regard to the additional prayers which is now incorporated by way of amendment to the plaint. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed additional issues including the issue relating to limitation. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that parties have already led evidence before the Trial Court even on the additional issue framed by the Trial Court including the issue of limitation. In my considered opinion, for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the present case, the proposed amendment is required and the same also would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

¶75

The question of limitation which arises while considering an application for amendment can always be kept open to be decided by the Trial Court and in the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the question of limitation is being considered by the Trial Court and an additional issue with regard to limitation is already framed. It is always open for the parties to lead

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:44825 WP No. 3947 of 2022

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

evidence on the said issue and get the same adjudicated in the suit.

¶80

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALDEV SINGH

¶81

& OTHERS VS MANOHAR SINGH & ANOTHER - (2006)6 SCC

¶82

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.

¶83

In the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

¶84

VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - (2022)

¶85

SCC OnLine SC 1128 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Courts while dealing with the prayer for amendment of

¶86

pleadings should avoid a hyper technical approach and are ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

¶87

The Trial Court while allowing IA.no.19 has imposed costs of Rs.2,000/-, which according to my opinion, is on the lower side. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the costs imposed while allowing IA.no.19 by the Trial Court needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, the following order:

¶88

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:44825 WP No. 3947 of 2022

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

Writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order in so far as it relates to allowing IA.no.19 filed in O.S.No.1089/2010 by the Court of XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is confirmed, and the same is modified in so far as it relates to imposing costs of Rs.2,000/-, and instead the applicants in IA.no.19 are directed to pay costs of Rs.20,000/-. It is brought to the notice of this Court that costs of Rs.2,000/is already paid by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court, and if that is so, the balance costs of Rs.18,000/- shall be paid by the plaintiffs to the contesting defendants before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶91

It is needless to state that the Trial Court shall make all endeavours to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, as expeditiously as possible.

¶92

Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

¶93

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶94

KK

Sri M Lakshmeesha v. Smt. M Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Lakshmeesha v. Smt. M Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akbar Ali Khan Vs Hussain Bi @ Bibijan

Mr Anjanappa Vs Sugada Bai

Jacintha Mathew Vs Rosalind Fernandes Alias Rosalind K a

Sri R R Sathyamurthy Vs Sri N v Venkataraju

Smt. Jalajakshi Vs Sri. Devaraju R

Sri Srikanth Y Vs State by