IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.53430/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. S.Manjunatha, S/o D.Sreeramappa, Aged about 35 years.
2. D.S.Gangarathna, D/o D.Sreeramappa, Aged about 45 years.
Both are R/a Gownipalli Village and Post, Royalpad Hobli, Srinivaspur Taluk, Kolar District.
…Petitioners (By Sri.Purushotham.G, Advocate) AND:
1. Jayalakshmamma, D/o late Subba Reddy, Aged about 71 years.
2. Venkatamma, W/o D.Sreeamappa, Aged about 65 years.
3. D.Sreeramappa, S/o Late Doddappa, Aged about 65 years.
4. Sri.D.S.Venkataramanna, S/o D.Sreeamappa, Aged about 45 years.
All R/a Gownipalli Village and Post, Royaload Hobli, Srinivaspur Taluk – 563135. Kolar District.
(By Sri.N.Bayya Reddy, Advocate for R1 Sri.M.S.Shishira, Advocate for R4 R2 and R3 served) ...Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 12.11.2014, Annx-A passed on I.A.No.20 filed for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of civil procedure code in OS No.177/2009 pending on the Court of Prl.Civil Judge at Srinivaspur and dismiss the amendment application.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners who are the defendant Nos.3 and 4 have challenged the order passed on I.A.No.20 whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by the plaintiff to amend the plaint paragraph No.5 and plaint schedule relating to the description of the property numbers and measurement has been allowed. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for an order of declaration as well as permanent injunction with respect to various items of the suit schedule property.
2. It is submitted that after the defendants have entered appearance, evidence was recorded of both the sides and matter was posted for arguments in the main petition. When the case was set out for arguments, the present application in question I.A.No.20 has been filed seeking for amendment of the pleadings. A perusal of the proposed amendment would reveal that the petitioners have sought for correction of the description of the property numbers as well as measurement as regards to some items of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that filing of the application for amendment was occasioned due to typographical mistake and that the measurement as well as property numbers with respect to which correction is sought for is in accordance with the Sale Deeds. Copies of which are produced and marked in evidence. It is also submitted that the proposed description of the properties tallies with the description as found in the registered documents.
3. The plaintiff further submits that except for the amendment with respect to the property numbers and the measurement no other amendment is sought for.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that they would not seek to lead any fresh evidence as evidence has already has been let in and amendment was only with respect to the description of the property.
5. In light of the same, I find no ground made out to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The trial Court while passing the impugned order has observed that the proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiff is on the basis of Sale Deeds that have been produced. Hence, the trial Court has concluded that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of cause of action nor the nature of suit nor it amounts to withdrawal of any admission. The trial Court has also recorded the finding that the proposed amendment if permitted would enable the Court to decide on the controversy on hand in an appropriate manner and also prevents complications arising at the stage of execution.
6. In light of the same, trial Court has allowed the proposed amendment. Noticing the reasoning of the trial Court and also that the proposed amendment relating to description of property is in accordance with the Sale Deeds already produced and marked by the plaintiff, the request as considered by the trial Court does not make out for any inferences. In fact the amendment would enable the resolution of the controversy as there is no further introduction of any cause of action nor introduction of a different case as per the amendment.
7. Accordingly, no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order. Taking note of the undertaking of the learned counsel for the respondents not to lead any fresh evidence, the petition is disposed off subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE NS