IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.12989 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN JYOTHI RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O H N RAMACHANDRA, NO.335, 36TH "A" CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011, REPRESENTED BY H S LALITHAMMA POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. … PETITIONER (BY SRI PHANIRAJ KASHYAP, ADVOCATE) AND 1. H D GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVANNA, R/O NO.329, 1ST FLOOR, 14TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE-560080.
2. THE BHUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NARASHIMARAJA SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002, REPRESENTED BY BBMP COMMISSIONER. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H R ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; V/O DATED 15.04.2019, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.02.2019 PASSED BY XVI ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.5153/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.5153/2009, is knocking at the doors of writ court for laying a challenge to the order dated 11.02.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure –A, whereby application filed by the other side under Order VI Rule 17 r/w section 151 of CPC, 1908, having been favoured, leave is accorded by the court below for amending the pleadings as sought for.
2. The contesting respondents have entered caveat through their counsel and resist the Writ Petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the petitioner has a deferred alternative remedy in the sense that he can make the impugned order one of the grounds for assailing the judgment & decree if and when made adverse to his interest, as provided u/s 105 r/w Order XLIII Rule 1A of amended CPC.
4. The contention of the petitioner that the pleas now sought to be introduced by way of amendment are thoroughly time barred, is not a ground for granting indulgence in the matter inasmuch as even this contention, he can take up in appeal, against the adverse judgment and decree if and when made as provided u/s 105 r/w Order XLIII Rule 1A of amended CPC.
5. The other reason for not accepting this contention is that the petitioner has right to file additional pleadings if he so choses controverting the contentions now taken up by way of amendment.
In the above circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits, is disposed off with the aforesaid observations.
Since the suit is old, the learned trial Judge is requested to accomplish the trial and disposal thereof preferably within a period of one year; all contentions of the parties having been kept open.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc