IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.42818 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Smt. Renuka W/o M. Srinivas Aged about 45 years Resident of Nelamane Village Srirangapatna Taluk K. Sattialli Mandya District – 571 438 (by Shri Suresh S. Likre, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Shanthamma W/o Late M. Swamy Aged about 64 years Agriculturist R/at Srirangapatna Town Madya District 571 438 2. Smt. Meenakshi W/o G. Nagaraju d/o late M. Swamy aged about 51 years Agriculturist Resident of Nelamane Village Srirangapatna Taluk K. Sattalli Mandya District 571 438 ... PETITIONER 3. Sri Ravi S/o late M. Swamy Aged about 48 years Agriculturist R/of Market Street Srirangapatna Town Mandya District 571 438 4. Smt. M. Veena W/o late M. Swamy Aged about 45 years House wife Jockey Quarters Mysore 571 438 5. Sri S. Chandrakala D/o late M. Swamy Aged about 38 years Agriculturist R/at Ganjam Village Srirangapatna Mandya District 571 438 6. Sri M. Srinivasa S/o Late Mayanna Aged about 52 years Agriculturist 7. Sri S. Anand S/o M. Srinivas Aged about 26 years Agriculturist R6 and R7 residing at Nelamane Village Srirangapatna Taluk K. Sattalli Mandya District 571 438 …RESPONDENTS This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 24.04.2019 in IA No.X passed in the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, Mandya.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner being defendant in a specific performance suit founded on an agreement to sell dated 23rd September, 2013 in OS No.109 of 2016 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 24th April, 2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby her application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amending the Written Statement has been rejected by the Court below.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter agreeing with the reasons assigned at its paragraphs 7 & 8 of the impugned order which read as under:
“7. On perusal of the records, it reveals that, the plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of the suit schedule property. Further it reveals that in response to the suit summons the defendant no.1 to 3 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed the written statement and thereafter issues were framed and then to prove their case, the plaintiff no.2 examined herself as PW1 and examined two witnesses as PW2 and 3 and got marked some documents as exhibits. Thereafter the defendant No.1 has filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and when the case was posted for further chief of DW.1 then the defendant No.1 and 2 have filed this application.
8. Further on perusal of the proposed amendment shown in the present application coupled with contents of earlier written statement filed by the defendant no.1 and 2, it reveals that at present, the defendant no.1 and 2 have inserted new facts by amending the written statement and also by withdrawing their earlier version by amending the written statement. Further as stated above that, in the month of January 2018 itself the defendants have cross-examined plaintiffs and their witnesses and at present, the case was posted for further chief of DW.1. Further, as stated above that, at present, the defendant No.1 and 2 are intending to amend the written statement by inserting new facts and also by withdrawing earlier version and as such, the same is not permissible law.”
In the above circumstances, writ petition is rejected in limine.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn