IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.34599 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O. LATE MUNIGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE MUNIGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. SMT SHAKUNTHALA D/O LATE MUNIGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5. SMT. LEELAVATHI D/O. LATE MUNIGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SMT. HEMAVATHI D/O. LATE MUNIGUNDAPPA SINCE DECEASED AS SPINSTER 6. SRI. VENU @ M.VENUGOPAL S/O. LATE MUNIGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.48, BYRASANDRA NEAR SWETHA BAR SRI. C.V.RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 093 7. SRI. GAJENDRA S/O. LATE MUNIGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.48, BYRASANDRA NEAR SWETHA BAR SRI. C.V. RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 093 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. R. SURENDRA BABU S/O. V. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.49, 19TH ‘J’ CROSS KAGGADASAPURA SRI. C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560 093 2. SRI. M. VENKATESKUMAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR SMT. ARATHI W/O. LATE M. VENKATESHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O. HODALI VILLAGE DEVARAPALLI POST RONUR HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 135 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-65) IN OS.NO.225/2012 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners being the defendants in a specific performance suit in O.S.No.225/2012 are invoking the writ jurisdiction for assailing the Order dated 10.07.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A whereby the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, having been favoured by the learned Trial Judge, leave is accorded for amending the plaint by introducing some other properties to the suit schedule;
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter since the petitioners have a deferred & alternative remedy inasmuch as they can make the impugned order one of the grounds for laying a challenge to the judgment and decree, if & when made adverse to their interest, as provided under Section 105 read with Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC, 1908.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed off.
Since the suit is of the year 2012, the learned trial Judge is directed to try and dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY