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.54137/2018 (GM - CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O. MAHADEVACHARI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANDIHALLI VILLAGE, INDLUVADI POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. N. MANJULA W/O. S. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANDIHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKALR TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106. ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL IN O.S.NO.214/2010 ON I.A. FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC, UNDER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT 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 13/11/2008, passed on I.A. filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in O.S.No.214/2010, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, whereby the said application has been rejected.
2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.214/2010 seeking permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the suit property against the petitioner herein. In the said proceedings, petitioner/defendant has filed application under order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the written statement inasmuch as the receipt of the advance sale consideration and also the date of the execution of the agreement of sale. The trial Court has rightly observed that the sale agreement dated 16/04/1991, receipt dated 30/07/1991 and the General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 09/08/1991 executed by one Sri Nagappa were marked as Exs.D-5 to D-7. It is the contention of the petitioner that a typographical error has occurred in Ex.D-7 regarding the date as well as the sale consideration received. The trial Court has recorded a finding that it is the specific case of the defendant in the pleadings, the sale consideration was fixed in the presence of the witnesses on 30/07/1991, but as per the amendment sought, the agreement was executed on 16//04/1991 and on that date, Sri Nagappa has received the sale consideration of Rs.2,500/- which was wrongly mentioned as Rs.5,500/- in the original written statement. It is a settled law that the evidence has to be adduced in the line of the pleadings, but the defendant, on considering the evidence let-in by the parties, is making an attempt to amend the pleadings in concurrence with the evidence on record. The said documents have already been marked and the evidence has been adduced by both the parties, the amendment sought for if allowed would certainly prejudice the rights of the other side. Hence, no jurisdictional error is found in the order impugned.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE S*