IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P. No. 39050 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SRI. ABOOBAKKAR SON OF S.KARIMULLA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.7, 12TH ‘A’ CROSS, LACHCHAPPA COLONY B.K.NAGARA YESHWANTPUR BANGALORE-560022. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. B.C. BHAGYA WIFE OF S.GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.29, BEHIND KONIKA GARMENTS, SHREEGANDHANAGARA HEGGANAHALLI EAST VISHVANEEDAM POST BANGALORE-560091 2. SRI N.SHREENIVAS SON OF NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. SRI N.JAYARAM SON OF LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. SRI N.SHIVAKUMAR SON OF LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 5. SRI.N.HANUMANTHA SON OF LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SINCE DEAD, RESPONDENT Nos.2 TO 4 HAVE TREATED AS HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 13.07.2016.
ALL RESIDING AT:
SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, VISHVANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560091. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H M SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED V/O DTD 13.07.2016;
R2 TO R4 ARE LRs OF R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2014, PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN REJECTING I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.6354/12, SEEKING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT, UNDER ANNEXURE-M, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R In O.S.No.6354/2012 having been denied leave to amend the plaint by the Court below vide order dated 11/7/2014, whereby his application in I.A.V has been dismissed the petitioner is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court against the same. After service of notice, the first respondent has entered appearance through his learned counsel.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the application for amendment of his plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, could not have been rejected inasmuch as in the affidavit supporting the said application, he has specifically mentioned about the subsequent development which necessitated adding an additional prayer with some grounds in support thereof; the trial has not begun and that the reason assigned by the Court below for rejecting the said application is not germane to the issue; lastly the dismissal of the application is in gross violation of law that governs the amendment of pleadings. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petition. On behalf of the contesting respondent, submissions are made in support of the impugned order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the contesting respondent; other respondents despite service of notice have remained unrepresented. I have perused the petition papers.
4. The petitioner’s suit is for a decree of permanent injunction; after the institution of the suit, the defendants are stated to have put up some structure on the suit land, despite notice having been issued by the petitioner. This assertion could not have been decided by the trial Court against the petitioner by scanty reason. If the amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to any of the respondents and conversely the denial of leave to amend the appeal has resulted into a manifest injustice to the petitioner-plaintiff, which needs to be set at naught by the writ Court.
5. In the above circumstance, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order dated 11/7/2014 is set aside; petitioner’s application in I.A.V filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking leave to amend the plaint is allowed; petitioner to file the amended plaint in the Court below within four weeks, where upon, it shall be open to the respondent-defendants to file their pleadings/additional pleadings.
The Trial Judge is requested to try and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the other mounting work load.
No costs.
NR/-
Sd/- JUDGE