IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.49491/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT.ANUSUYAMMA …..SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:-
1. SRI.N.PRAKASH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 48 YEARS 2. SRI.CHANDRASEKAR S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs:
(A) SMT.NANJAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRASEKAR AGED 22 YEARS (B) KUMARI NETHRA D/O LATE CHANDRASEKAR AGED 20 YEARS (C) KUMARI RADHA D/O LATE CHANDRASEKAR AGED 20 YEARS (D) KUMARI MALA D/O LATE CHANDRASEKAR AGED 18 YEARS 3. SMT.SARASWATHI D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 44 YEARS 4. SMT.MANJULA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 42 YEARS 5. SRI.MOHAN S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 40 YEARS 6. SMT.PUSHPA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 38 YEARS ALL THE LRs. HEREIN ARE R/AT THIGALARAPALYA HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU- 560 048 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.KANAKAMMA W/O LATE P.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS (DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT) LEAVING BEHIND PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AS HER LEGAL HEIRS 2. SRI.SRINIVAS S/O LATE P.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SRI.JAYARAJ S/O LATE P.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT THIGALARAPALYA HOODI VILLAGE MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE- 560 048 4. SMT.M.SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE P.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 228-E, GOODAVAHALLI VILLAGE HEBBAL, R.T.NAGAR POST BANGALORE- 560 032 5. SRI.RAMESH S.JANNU S/O SRINIVAS S.JANNU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.3, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 6. SRI.K.SANTHOSH S/O D.M.KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 136, 2ND CROSS 2ND MAIN, DOMALUR 2ND STAGE BANGALORE- 560 071 7. M/S HABITAT PROGNYA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHIVARAM MALAKALA & BHASKAR T.N., OFFICE AT NO. 26 SHANKARAMUTT ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SIVI RAJASHEKAR, ADV.
FOR SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R4, MS.AISHWARYA CHANDAR, ADV. AND MS.SAHANA DEVANATHAN, ADV.
FOR INDUS LAW FOR R7 SRI.A.ANTHONY RAJ, ADV. FOR R2 & R3 SRI.SATISH G.RAIKAR, ADV. FOR R5 .) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTE OF INDIA AND PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE ON IA NO. 7 IN O.S.NO. 7654/2005 DTD: 27.05.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Plaintiff in O.S.No.7654/2005 has come up in this petition impugning the order dated 27.05.2013 in rejecting her application in I.A.No.7 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Admittedly, O.S.No.7654/2005 is for the relief of partition and other related reliefs which was filed on 05.10.2005. In the said suit a memo was filed by the plaintiff to delete the following two prayers (b and c):
(b) to declare that the two registered General powers of Attorney both dated 24.02.2005 executed by Sri.Srinivas, the second defendant herein in favour of the fifth defendant, which is registered as Document No. KRI-4-00751-2005-06 and KRI-4-00752-2005-06 of Book-IV, stored in CD No. KRID118, registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore does not bind the plaintiff.
(c) to declare that the partition deed dated: 18.03.2005 executed by and between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4, which is registered as Document No. KRI-1-34975-2004-05 of book-I, stored in CD No. KRID124, registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, K,.R.Puram, Bangalore, has been got effected by playing fraud on the plaintiff and is not binding on the plaintiff.
The said memo was allowed. Consequently, the said prayers (b) and (c) were deleted by amending the plaint on 21.10.2005. It is thereafter plaintiff has filed an application – I.A.No.7 on 03.11.2012 seeking to amend the plaint to reintroduce the very same prayers which was deleted on 21.10.2005. The said application is rejected by impugned order which is sought to be challenged in this proceeding.
3. In this proceeding, the entire Lower Court Records is secured. On going through the same, it is clear that immediately after filing of the suit, plaintiff who had earlier sought the very same prayers, has voluntarily given it up on 21.10.2005 even before summons was issued to the defendants. Thereafter, there is an attempt to reintroduce the same, that too nearly after 10 years. As rightly observed by the trial Court, no grounds are made out to entertain the said application. Therefore, rejection of the same appears to be correct. Accordingly, this writ petition filed seeking to interfere with the orders passed on I.A.No.7 does not merit consideration.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE brn