IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50281 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.H.LAKSHMI BAI W/O.LATE L.NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SRI N.SHANKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. NAGARAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. BHARATHI N.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 5. N.CHANDRIKA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS P2 TO P5 ARE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF LATE L.NARAYANA RAO ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.B-44, P.V.R.ROAD BENGALURU-560 053 (BY SRI AMARESH A. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.UNNAMALAI W/O.LATE V.MANOHARAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT KALLUPATTI KARAIKUDI TALUK ... PETITIONERS RAMANATHAPURA DISTRICT-630 001 TAMILNADU STATE 2. SRI V.THIRUNAVAKKARASU S/O.LATE VEERAPPA CHETTIAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.74/9, 1ST CROSS DEVANATHANCHAR STREET RAGHAVENDRA COLONY CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560 018 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ON IA.NO.9 IN OS.NO.3921/2010 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners being the plaintiffs in a suit founded on adverse possession in O.S.No.3921/2010 are knocking at the doors of writ Court for assailing the Order dated 13.09.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A has been substantially rejected by the learned V Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) suit is of the year 2010 and the decree for declaration of consequential injunction is sought for on the basis of alleged adverse possession; the petitioners have moved the subject application belatedly on 18.06.2018 sans due deligence; the request for deletion of five lines in para no.22 of the plaint and the consequential request for deletion of prayer column ‘b’ do not prima facie generate confidence;
b) the contention that trial has not begun and therefore all amendments invariably need to be allowed is too broad to be accepted; para nos.20 and 21 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of MAHILA RAMKALI DEVI AND OTHERS VS. NANDRAM AND OTHERS, (2015) 13 SCC 132, do not support such a view; if the trial has begun, the interdiction enacted in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 at once is invokable, is true; the converse contention that whenever the trial has not begun, the amendments regardless of the delay & diligence needs to be allowed, is not supported by any decision and more particularly, the one cited at the Bar;
c) the request for deletion of five lines at para no.22 of the plaint and of para-b of prayer column which is structured upon the said five lines, is rejected by the Court below by sound reasons and in its wisdom; a Writ Court does not interfere in a matter merely because the impugned order is arguably illegal, in the absence of a demonstrable prejudice of considerable quantum, which is lacking in this case; if the petitioners do not want certain version in their pleadings, it is open to them not to substantiate their case on the basis of those five lines; therefore, no prejudice thus is occasioned by the impugned order regardless of its arguable irregularity.
Accordingly, this writ petition is rejected in limine.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY