IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 29898 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SAVITHRAMMA @ A V SAVITHRAMMA, W/O LATE B S NARAYAN GOWDA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT BALUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIM) … PETITIONER (BY MISS. VIDYASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. B C UDAYA, S/O LATE CHANDRE GOWDA, AGED 48 YEARS, 2. B D MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE DYAVAPPAGOWDA, AGED 57 YEARS, 3. B L SUNDARESHA, S/O LATE LAXMANAGOWDA, AGED 37 YEARS, 4. B L SURENDRA, S/O LATE LAXMANAGOWDA, AGED 42 YEARS, 5. B M NAGESHAGOWDA, S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, AGED 60 YEARS, 6. PRAKASHA, S/O UNKNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, AGED 57 YEARS, ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE RESIDENTS OF BALLUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK – 577 132.
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.06.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO. 143/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALLOW THIS W.P WITH COSTS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.143/2017 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 19.09.2019 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mudigere, having favoured respondent- defendants’ application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 has accorded leave to amend the Written Statement.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
(a) the suit is of the year 2017; the application for amendment is filed on 15.04.2019 after a particular stand taken up by the plaintiff in the evidence which is half a through; thus, there is no delay that stares at the respondent – defendants;
(b) the amendment now sought for is amplificatory in nature as rightly observed by the Court below in its impugned order; it has been the consistent view of the Courts that whenever the amendments are amplificatory in nature, the rigor of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 does not apply; and (c) such discretionary orders would not warrant indulgence of the Writ Court vide TRIMBAK GANGADHAR TELANG AND ANOTHER Vs. RAMCHANDRA GANESH BHIDE AND OTHERS., AIR 1977 SC 1222.
In the above circumstances, writ petition being devoid of merits is rejected in limine.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv