IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.36532 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
G. SHIVARAMU S/O. NINGAIAH AGED 55 YEARS GORAVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK – 572 129 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. G.N.SUNITHA D/O. NINGAIAH ALIAS GOOLIGOWDA AND W/O. SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT H.K.V. NAGARA MADDUR TOWN MADDUR TALUK – 571 428 2. G.N.KRISHNEGOWDA S/O. NINGAIAH @ GOOLIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS GORAVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK – 572 129 3. SMT. G.N.BHAGYA D/O. NINGAIAH ALIAS GOOLIGOWDA W/O. V.R.SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT VALAGEREHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK – 560 060 4. SMT.G.N.JAYAMMA D/O. NINGAIAH ALIAS GOOLIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS GORAVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK 5. K.SHANKARA DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS 5(A) S.SANTOSH S/O. LATE K.SHANKARA 5(B) S.SINDHU D/O. LATE K.SHANKARA 5(C) C.D.PADMA W/O. LATE K.SHANKARA ALL RESIDING AT VISVESWARAIAH LAYOUT 8TH CROSS, MUDDUR TOWN MADDUR – 571 428.
6. BASAVARAJ BALAPPA HUGAR S/O.BALAPPA HUGAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESDING AT MALLIKARJUNA ONI POST MURGED, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591 119.
…RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2019 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AT MADDUR IN OS.NO.260/2007 ON I.A.NO.22 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the first defendant in a declaration & partition suit in O.S.No.260/2007 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 08.01.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – E whereby the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Maddur having rejected his application in I.A.No.22 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C, has denied leave to amend the Written Statement.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) the subject suit is of the year 2007; the plaint came to be amended in 2018; the amended plaint too was filed; the petitioner being the first defendant has resisted the suit by filing the written statement on 19.02.2008; the trial has also advanced considerably; the petitioner has now filed subject application only on 22.11.2018; thus, there is inordinate delay that stares at the petitioner;
b) the interdiction enacted in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to addresses the Court and therefore, regardless of what the amendment now sought for would do to the legal battle is irrelevant; the contention that the amendment if allowed would strengthen the case of the plaintiff is a feeble ground for granting leave to amend the pleadings;
c) the application of the petitioner also lacks a bit bona fide inasmuch as the reason for taking up these amendments is stated to be typographical error which militates against common sense; this aspect of the matter having been discussed by the Court below in the impugned order, this Court being in complete agreement with the same, declines to grant relief to the petitioner.
3. However, the version of the Court below that the amendment if allowed would take away whatever arguable admission the petitioner has given in his pleadings may not be correct. However that the error per se, is not sufficient for invalidating the impugned order, which otherwise is just and lawful.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is rejected in limine.
The Court below is directed to expedite the trial and dispose off the suit.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY