IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 52270 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
M S LOKESH S/O LATE M C SHIVARAMU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A HONAGANAHALLI MUTT (HONAGANAHALLI MUTT COLONY) KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK -571412.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT M S SUDHARANI W/O H B CHANDRASHEKARGOWDA AND D/O LATE M C SHVIARAMU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A HANAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK – 571412.
2. SMT M S KARUNA W/O LATE G R KUMAR AND D/O LATE M C SHIVARAMU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A CHIKKA GOLLARAHATTI MAGADI ROAD LAKSHMIPURA POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH -560079 3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE M C SHIVARAMU AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 4. SMT MADHU W/O LATE M S VISHWANATH (S/O LATE M C SHIVARAMU) AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 5. KUM RAKSHITHA D/O LATE M S VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 6. MASTER LIKHITH S/O LATE M S VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS REPT BY THEIR MOTHER GUARDIAN SMT MADHU (RESPONDENT NO. 4) R3 TO 6 ARE R/A HONAGANAHALLI MUTT, (HONAGANAHALLI MUTT COLONY) KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK -571 421.
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2019 ON I.A.NO.32 FILED IN O.S.154/2011 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANDYA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in a partition suit in O>S.No.154/2011 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 20.11.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-D whereby his amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 has been rejected.
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 declaration suit is of the year 2011; after completion of the pleadings by both the sides, the battle lines having been drawn up, the trial having been held, the matter is now posted for judgment; when the matter was finally argued, the petitioner has filed the subject application on 19.11.2019, seeking leave to amend the Written Statement which the Court has refused giving cogent reasons at para 7 of the impugned order with which this Court is in complete agreement; and, (b) the reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex court in MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRA VS. ROOP RANI MEHRA AND OTHER, LAWS(SC) 2017 12 52, does not come to his aid inasmuch as, the fact matrix of the said case is miles away from that of petitioner’s case; the intent of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC being as clear as can be, acceding to the request of the petitioner for leave to amend the Written Statement would militate against the said proviso.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is disposed off in limine.
However, the observations made hereinabove being confined to disposal of the writ petition will not come in the way of petitioner laying a challenge to the impugned order in appeal in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 of the amended Code if & when he suffers an adverse decree.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv