IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.9989/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
C.MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NEAR ADIYAPPA THOTA MARALU BAGILU DEVANAHALLI TOWN- 562 110 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. V.NAGARAJ S/O LATE PULAHALLI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT PANNER BEEDHI MARALUBAGILU DEVANAHALLI TOWN – 562 110 2. THAMMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT KUMBARARA BEEDHI DEVANAHALLI TOWN – 562 110 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.578/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI ALLOWING THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/ R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition is by defendant No.1 and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 14.02.2017. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) for amendment of the plaint. The order verbatim reads as follows:
“ORDER ON I.A U/O VI RULE 17 R/W 151 OF C.P.CODE Learned counsel for plaintiff filed I.A praying for amendment of plaint to …………… in the I.A. and submitted that by ignorance and illiterate of plaintiff the description of suit property is not properly given hence it is necessary to amend the plaint to adjudicate real question in the suit.
Whereas defendant filed objection plaintiff put forth false claim and application is filed only to drag the proceeding. hence I.A may be rejected.
Since the plaintiff intended to explain the property is came to be phoded and also give proper description of suit property which is very necessary for complete and effective adjudication of suit and further ruling reported in AIR 1981 SC 1533 in VEREEKUTY V/S MATHU KUTTY. Amendment to give proper description of property in dispute may be allowed. in view of same I.A filed by plaintiff U/O VI Rule 17 R/W 151 of C.P.C. allowed.
Consequently plaintiff to amend the plaint to furnish amended plaint.”
3. In my opinion, this is not a fit case to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order before the Appellate Court as provided under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal against the decree to be passed by the trial Court.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR