IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.3279/2018(GM-PP) BETWEEN M SRINIVASULU S/O LATE M MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.40, ATHMANANDA TRUST, 7TH CROSS, ATHMANANDA COLONY MATADAHALLI, SULTAN PALYA R T NAGAR BANGALORE - 560092 (BY SRI B. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. THE ESTATE OFFICER HEAD QUARTER CELL, KARNATAKA AND KERALA SUB AREA CUBBON ROAD, BANGALORE - 01 2. PARACHUTE REGIMENT TRAINING CENTER PRASHIKSHAN KENDRA PRTC J.C., NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560006 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMANDANT COLONEL ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. BHEEMAIAH, CGC, FOR R1;
SMT. S. SUMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 DISMISSING THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 151 OF CPC AND ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC FOR RE-OPENING OF THE CASE AND FOR AMENDMENT OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN NO. 7224/E/ PRTC - Q3-01 TO 07 AND 13 BEFORE R1 AT ANNEXURE - F TO WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;
O R D E R Sri B. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri K.S. Bheemaiah, CGC for Respondent No. 1 and Smt. S. Sumathi, learned counsel for R2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner inter alia seeks for quashment of the order dated 10.10.2017 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for reopening of the case and for amendment of the statement of objections was rejected.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the proceedings under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2011. The petitioner filed statement of objections on 29.09.2011. After the period of six years, when the case was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the Statement of Objections on 08.08.2017. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Estate Officer inter alia on the ground that the aforesaid application has been filed with a sole intention to protract the proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary for fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the petition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Estate Officer is perfectly just and legal. It is further submitted that the amendment was made with a view to fill up lacuna.
5. I have considered the submission made on both sides and perused the records. Admittedly the petitioner has filed the statement of objections in the proceedings initiated against him on 29th September 2011. Thereafter, the application for amendment was filed on 08.08.2017. In the application for amendment, no reasons have been assigned for making the application after delay of six years. Apart from this, the application was filed at the time when the case was already fixed for final arguments. Therefore, it is evident that the application was filed with the sole motive to protract the proceedings. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
SBS* Sd/- JUDGE