IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.25786/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI A.N.VENKATESHAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O KELGINA THOTAGALU (H S GARDENS), CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101 CHICKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAI PRAKASH REDDY M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. PADMAVATHI C/O VENKATAPPA AGE MAJOR, R/O CHEEDACHICKANAHALLI NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101 2. SRI NANJUNDA MURTHY S/O VENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 2(a) RATHNAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2(b) NAVEEN S/O LATE NANJUNDA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 2(c) KUMARI BABU @ LAKSHMI D/O LATE NANJUNDA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 2(a) TO 2(c) ARE R/O KARKANEPETE CHICKBALLAPUR – 562 101 3. V.KRISHNA MURTHY @ KRISHNA S/O VENKATAPPA, AGE MAJOR R/O RADHAKRISHNA PROVISION STORE BESIDE AUTO STAND, B.B.ROAD CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2017 ON I.A. UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.346/1998 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKKABALLAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SEC. 151 CPC ON THE FILE OF LEARNED I-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKKABALLAPUR AT ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition is by the plaintiff and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 12.01.2017 whereby the trial court has declined to grant the prayer for amendment of the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.346/1998.
2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
3. As could be seen from the impugned order, the aforesaid suit was instituted on 02.12.1998 and the application for amendment was made on 05.01.2017. It is not the case of the petitioner that in spite of due diligence, he could not have sought for the amendment before commencement of trial. Hence, I find no error in the impugned order to warrant interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
hkh.
Sd/- JUDGE