IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.30008/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MR.S.A.VASUDEVA S/O.S.R.ANNAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.85/2, 2ND MAIN 5TH CROSS, SRINIVASA TEMPLE STREET MARUTHINAGAR, NEW EXTENSION MADIVALA, BENGALURU-560 068 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR.S.R.ANNAIAH REDDY S/O LATE S A RAMASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. MR.S.A.ANAND S/O.S.R.ANNAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 3. MR.S.A.PRASANNA KUMAR S/O.S.R.ANNAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 4. MRS.KANTHA W/O.S.R.ANNAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.85/2, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS SRINIVASA TEMPLE STREET MARUTHINAGAR, NEW EXTENSION MADIVALA, BENGALURU-560 068 5. MR.NIRAMAL KUMAR JAIPURIA S/O LATE B N JAIPURIA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.228-236 RAHEJA ARCADE, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095 6. MR.THUKARAM V S/O VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.40/A, 4TH BLOCK 17TH ‘A’ MAIN, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034 7. M/S.MDVR PROJECTS PVT. LTD A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THIRUMALA RESIDENCY, 2ND MAIN 12TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE BENGALURU-560 078 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.RAMACHANDRA REDDY 8. MR.D.KRISHNA KIRAN S/O.G.DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.610, 11TH CROSS J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE BANGALORE-78 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.18.4.2017 PASSED BY THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE HOLDING C/C OF XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY DISMISSING IA.NO.8 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.15/2012, AS PER ANNEX-A TO ALLOW THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION AND TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO CONTINUE THE SUIT ON MERITS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 18.04.2017 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.15/2012 on the file of the LXVI Additional City Civil Judge holding C/C of XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, at Bangalore City, rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.
2. Heard Sri Rajagopala Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing the suit for partition against his father and others, petitioner learnt about the manner in which his father had acquired the suit schedule property in question. Accordingly, he got filed the instant application to amend the plaint.
4. The suit is of the year 2012. The application for amendment was filed on 28.01.2017. To a query by this Court, learned Counsel submitted that the suit is now set down for recording the evidence of the defendants. The learned trial Judge, on consideration of material on record, has, in my opinion, rightly held that the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove his case and it cannot depend upon the strength or weakness of the other side. The learned trial Judge has also recorded that the allowing amendment of plaint at this stage would affect the progress made in the suit. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the trial Judge.
5. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.