IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.50492 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
S.V. VENKATESHAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA DEAD BY SUCCESSOR HARSHAVARDHANA S/O S.V. YOGARAJU AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS R/O BANASHANKARI STREET KOTE HOSADURGA TOWN REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER H.R. BHARATHI W/O S.V. YOGARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS AGRICULTURIST/HOUSEHOLD R/O BANASHANKARI STREET KOTE HOSADURGA TOWN-5777527. (By Mr. KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADV.) AND:
1. ONKARAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA, MAJOR AGRICULTURIST R/O NONNEKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577527.
2. HANUMAKKA W/O THIMMAIAH DEAD BY LRS.
2(1) ANJANAPPA DEAD BY LRS.
… PETITIONER 2(a) H.A. SATISH S/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
2(b) SRIDHAR S/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUTG 33 YEARS.
BOTH (a) & (b) ARE RESIDING AT NO.358, KVK LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 1ST FLOOR NEAR DEEPANJALINAGAR BENGALURU-560026.
2(c) SMT. H.A. KAVITHA W/O K.R. HEMANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS C/O B.V. SIDDAPPA BUILDING 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN MANDARA NILAYA GORAGUNTAPALYA BENGALURU-560027.
2(d) H.A. GIRISH S/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS C/O NO.358, KVK LAYOUT 2ND CROSS, 1ST FLOOR NEAR DEEPANJALINAGAR BENGALURU-560026.
2(e) CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RETIRED OFFICIAL R/O RATHEEKSHA NILAYA BEHIND K.E.B. OFFICE VIDHYANAGAR HOSADURGA-577527.
3. S.V. SREENIVASA S/O S.V. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BUSINESSMAN R/O SRAVANA NILAYA NEAR GENERAL KARYAPPA HIGH SCHOOL GORAVINKALLU HOSADURGA TALUK-577527.
4. S.V. RANGANATH S/O S.V. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS EX-PRESIDENT OF PURASABHA.
5. SUKANYA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
6. S.V. YOGARAJ S/O S.V. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
7. S.V. RAVIKUMAR S/O S.V. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF BANASHANKARI STREET KOTE HOSADURGA TOWN-577527.
8. S.V. RAJASHEKHAR S/O S.V. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O # 209 1/21 SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA, 4TH CROSS MADHURA GARMENTS ELECTRONIC CITY, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560100.
9. S.V. GEETHA W/O G.D. PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, C/O BEHIND HOYSALESHWARA COLLEGE MARUTHINAGAR ARASIKERE TOWN-573103 … RESPONDENTS - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 30-05-2009 vide Annx-J, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosadurga and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Heard Sri.Kaleemullah Shariff, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 30.05.2018, by which application for amendment of the plaint filed in an appeal pending before the Appellate Court has been directed to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. The Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 11.11.2013 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal namely R.A.No.120/2016. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint for incorporating the prayer for cancellation of sale deed. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 30.05.2018, has directed that the aforesaid application shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
5. It is well settled in law that if an application for amendment of the plaint as well as the application under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed at the appellate stage, the same is considered at the time of hearing of the appeal so as to enable the Appellate Court to pass an effective order on merits. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423]. In the instant case, the impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RV