IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.3090/2019(GM-CPC) 1. N. MANJULA, W/O LATE K. SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. K S ARCHANA D/O LATE K SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 3. K S AMBIKA D/O LATE K SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 4. K S PRIYANKA, D/O LATE K. SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 5. K ASHWATH REDDY S/O LATE KADIRAPPA REDDY AGED 60 YEARS, 6. K GOPALA REDDY S/O LATE KADIRAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKATHOGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-560100.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI B V MALLA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MUNIYAPPA REDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED 40 YEARS, 2. CHIKKACHENNAPPA @ CHIKKACHENNA REDDY S/O LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY AGED 72 YEARS, 3. SMT PUTTAMMA W/O LATE THATHAPPA REDDY AGED 72 YEARS, 4. MANJUNATHA REDDY @ MUNINANJAREDDY S/O LATE THATHAPPAREDDY AGED 50 YEARS, 5. SMT. RAJAMMA D/O LATE THATHAPPA REDDY AGED 52 YEARS, 6. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATERAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGED 44 YEARS, 7. SMT MALA D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGED 37 YEARS, 8. HEMANTHA KUMAR S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGED 34 YEARS, 9. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, 10. VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED 33 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKATHOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-560100.
... RESPONDENTS … THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED ON IA IN O.S.NO.1230/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have filed the present writ petition against the order dated 2.11.2018 passed on I.A.12 in O.S.No.1230/2006 allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of written statement filed by her with cost of Rs.100/-.
2. The 2nd respondent, who is plaintiff before the trial Court filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and there was no partition in the suit schedule properties and hence he is entitled to his share. Defendant No.2 to 4 filed their written statement denying the entire plaint averments and contended that there was already a partition which has been admitted by other defendants and hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.
3. The other defendants have not filed their written statement except defendant No.12, who contended that there was partition but still she supports the case of the plaintiff. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, at that stage, defendant No.12 filed an application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate certain paragraphs giving details and assertions made against defendant No.3. The said application was opposed by the other defendants including the plaintiff. The trial Court considering the application and objections by the impugned order dated 2.11.2018 allowed the application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
5. Sri B.V. Malla Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos.2 to 4 contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the application for amendment of written statement by the 12th defendant is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that when the written statement was filed on 27.5.2010, the trial had commenced on 9.2.2018, and plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to 48, at that belated stage, defendant No.12 had come up with an application for amendment to incorporate certain imputations affecting the character and conduct of petitioner No.5-defendant No.3 and the trial Court ought to have rejected the said application on the ground of delay and laches of more 12 years. He further contended that respondent No.1/defendant No.12 and plaintiff colluded together and have filed the present application only to protract the proceedings. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have rejected the application. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is an undisputed fact that according to the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties existing as on today between the parties and there was no partition. Accordingly, defendant Nos.1 to 4 contend that there was already a partition which has to be adjudicated after the full fledged trial between the parties. The trial Court considering the application and objections has recorded a finding that the properties acquired under partition have already been bequeathed and the said documents have already acted upon. Since the said information in the written statement was not pleaded, the present application is filed, which is nothing but ancillary to his written statement and will not change neither the nature of the suit nor cause of action as the burden also rests on defendant No.12 to prove the allegations made in the amendment. If the amendment application is allowed and the said amendment is made in the written statement, the plaintiff has got an opportunity to cross- examine the witness.
The Trial Court further observed that the object of the provisions is to minimize the litigation and the principle laid down is to avoid multiple litigations, and amendment can be allowed even at a belated stage. If the amendment is allowed, it would not alter the nature of the suit. Since the application was filed after commencement of trial and at the belated stage, it was held that though barred under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, that itself was not a ground to reject the application. Accordingly, as it was just and necessary, the trial Court allowed the application.
8. The amendment application filed on 27.5.2010 was only assertions/ancillary to the written statement and will no way prejudice either the case of the plaintiff or defendants-present petitioners. The amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case. The amendment is bonafide and it will not prejudice the case of the petitioners. Refusing the amendment would in fact lead to injustice, and would lead to multiplicity of litigations. The proposed amendment filed by defendant No.12- respondent No.1 would not constitutionally or fundamentally change the nature and character of the case. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application for amendment is just and proper and it is always open for the plaintiff to cross-examine the witness or defendant No.12.
9. In view of the above, petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
10. Since the suit is of the year 2006 and now we are in 2019, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the suit itself, in accordance with law, subject to co- operation of both the parties.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-