Dismissed¶¶35

Sujatha v. Umadevi K R

Karnataka HC25 Feb 2025WP/85/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 85 of 2025 (GM-CPC); decided 25.02.2025 by H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. Article 227 writ petition against order dated 24.09.2024 of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru rejecting I.A. No.10 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement in O.S. No.157/2018 (suit for injunction); held amendment irrelevant to injunction suit; plaintiff must prove lawful possession on date of suit; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In a suit for injunction, it is for the plaintiffs to prove that they are in lawful possession as on the date of filing the suit and that the defendants are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property. ¶¶29

Sujatha Vs Umadevi K R — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8364 WP No. 85 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUJATHA D/O LATE. MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT # 2866, BEHIND LAW COURTS SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU-570009.

¶9

LAKSHMI D/O LATE. MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT # 2866, BEHIND LAW COURTS SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU-570009. …PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

UMADEVI K R W/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT #64, 6TH CROSS K.R. VANA, MYSURU-570008.

¶14

S. INDUSHEKAR D/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT #64, 6TH CROSS K.R. VANA, MYSURU-570008.

¶15

KEERTHISHEKAR S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:8364 WP No. 85 of 2025

¶18

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT #174, 3^RD 'A' CROSS, 2^ND MAIN VASANTHA VALLABHA NAGARA BENGALURU – 560061.

¶19

JAYARAMU S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT #2866, BEHIND LAW COURTS SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU-570009.

¶20

CHIKKALINGAMMA W/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT #2866, BEHIND LAW COURTS SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU-570009.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2024 IN OS. NO.157/2018 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU DISMISSING I.A. NO.10 TO AMEND THE WRITTEN STATEMENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW SAID I.A.NO.10 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION WHICH IS NECESSARY AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by petitioners-defendant Nos.3 and 4, challenging the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8364 WP No. 85 of 2025

¶27

on I.A.No.10 filed by defendant No.3 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.157/2018, whereby the trial Court has rejected the said application.

¶28

The plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction. After service of summons, the defendants filed the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 has filed I.A.No.10 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of the written statement. The trial Court by order dated 24.09.2024 has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.

¶29

Since the suit for injunction, it is for the plaintiffs to prove that they are in the lawful possession as on the date of filing the suit and that the defendants are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property.

¶30

Under this circumstance, the amendment sought by defendant No.3 is nothing to do with the injunction suit. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:8364 WP No. 85 of 2025

¶33

application. There is no error or illegality in the order

¶34

passed by the trial Court.

¶35