IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.2082/2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O PAKARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PAVAN SAGAR FOR SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THYAGRAJ S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. VENKATESHPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. ERAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4. KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 5. CHIKKA ANNAIAH S/O COOGURU CHOWDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT BYALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.3/2, 3RD FLOOR, KHENI BUILDING 1ST CROSS, GANDHI NAGARA BANGALORE – 560 009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SOMASHEKHAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI HARIPRASAD N & SRI BRIJESH R, ADVOCATES FOR R5; SRI B.V.SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6) WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2011 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.44/2010 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. Heard. Perused the impugned order dated 10.11.2011 passed by the trial court dismissing the application-I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.517/2011.
2. The trial court has dismissed the application with the following reasoning:
“4. Perused the entire pleadings of the parties, instant application with objections filed by the respective parties and arguments addressed by the learned advocates for the parties. On perusal of the plaint and the proposed amendment, this court feels to observe that the proposed amendment will changes the nature of suit and it leads changing of cause of action. The plaintiff has not made out any just and reasonable ground to allow this application. More over the proposed amendment sought by plaintiff is belated one. ”
3. In my opinion, the order is vague and lacks clarity.
The trial court has not stated as to how the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and the cause of action. Therefore, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the trial court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.11.2011 passed by the trial court on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.517/2011 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court for reconsideration in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.