IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.3826/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
K.V.SRINIVASA REDDY S/O VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O KONAPPALLI VILLAGE & POST, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.] AND:
RAMAPPA @ RAMAREDDY S/O DODDA NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NOW R/O SONNASETTYHALLI EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTAMANI ON I.A.NO.15 IN O.S.NO.72/2013 VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.01.2019 passed on I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.72/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chintamani, whereby the said application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.72/2013 before the Trial Court seeking the relief of specific performance of contract against the defendant. In the said proceedings, I.A.No.14 was filed to delete item No.7 from the plaint, which came to be allowed. Subsequently, plaintiff filed I.A.No.15 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking to add para No.2, which came to be dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel Sri. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the deletion of the paragraph in the plaint, it was necessary for the plaintiff to add another paragraph by way of an amendment to the plaint, which was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court while rejecting the application.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be negated for the reasons that filing of successive applications seeking for amendment of the pleadings by the parties has to be discouraged which would be nothing but procrastination of the matter involving the public time. Earlier Amendment applications dated 19.06.2017 and 26.10.2017 by the petitioner being allowed, no absolute right is vested to file one application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking for deletion of paragraph in plaint and another application again for seeking amendment of the plaint to add another paragraph. Comprehensively all these amendments ought to have been sought by the petitioner. That having not been done, the Trial Court is right in rejecting the application.
5. The amendment now sought for, by the petitioner at the time of evidence would certainly prejudice the rights of the defendant. The finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has the right to lead evidence excluding item No.7 of the suit property since the same has been deleted in terms of the amendment sought by the plaintiff cannot be found fault with. No jurisdictional error is found in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR