IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 29953 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
K.R. RAVI KUMAR, S/O RENUKARADHYA, R/AT NRUPATHUNGA EXTENTION, NEAR SUPARNA PROVISIONS STORES, TUMKUR-572 101.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. PREM KUMAR C S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K.R. CHANDRASHEKARARADHYA, S/O RENUKARADHYA, R/AT 2R/T, NO.52, 4TH A MAIN ROAD, C CROSS, KALYANANAGARA, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072.
(PLAINTIFF NO.1 DEAD BY LRS OF PLAINTIFF NO.1 ALREADY ON RECORD I.E., PALINTIFF NO.2) 2. SUMANGALA W/O RENUKARADHYA, KALYA MUTT, KALYA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120 3. MADHUMATHI LAKSHMANKUMAR D/O RENUKARADYA W/O LAKSHMANKUMAR.P AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 229, SRISIDDESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST STAGE, EWSKHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079.
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE 2nd ADD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMKUR IN O.S.NO.191/2013 ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT TO THE W.P. STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER UNDER ANNX-'A' DATED 6.7.2019.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the second defendant in a partition suit filed by the first respondent – plaintiff in O.S.No.191/2013 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 06.07.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned II Senior Civil Judge , Tumakuru, has rejected his application filed under order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 for amendment of 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) this partition suit is of the year 2013, the Written Statement is filed on 06.08. 2013; the trial is half a through; petitioner has filed his application for amendment of the Written Statement only on 12.04.2019; thus, ordinarily such an application cannot be favourably considered subject to exceptions into which case of the petitioner does not fit; the learned trial Judge has referred to latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of M. Revanna Vs. Anjanamma in Civil Appeal No. 1669/2019, in passing the impugned order; he has also referred to the Apex Court decisions of 2009 and of 2007 mentioned in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order; and, (b) the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay brooked in seeking leave to amend the Written Statement does not merit acceptance; nothing would have prevented the petitioner from taking up the contentions now sought to be introduced by way of amendment, in the Written Statement when it was filed in the year 2013 itself; the subject matter of amendment is not a development that has occurred subsequent to filing of the Written Statement.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is rejected in limine.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv