IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.31356 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI BASAVANNA S/O LATE MAKAIAH @ MUGAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O NADANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU-5831021 .… PETITIONER (BY SRI SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT BORAMMA W/O LATE MALLI MAJOR RESIDENT OF SIDDAIAHANAPURA KOLLEGALA TALUK-583102 2. SMT. MAYAMMA W/O RAJU MAJOR RESIDENT OF VARUNA VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK-583102 3. SRI. H.M. JAGADEESH S/O H.S. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NADANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK-570017. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.13.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.67 OF 2003 BEFORE THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE AT MYSURU (ANNX-A) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the plaintiff in the injunctive suit in O.S.No.67/2003 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 13.06.2019 a copy whereof is at annexure – A whereby the learned trial Judge has rejected his application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908, seeking leave to amend the plaint.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to interfere in the matter because:
a) The suit is of the year 2003; regardless of stand of the respondents-defendants, they had filed their affidavit evidence by the way of examination-in-chief on 21.08.2012 wherein they have specifically taken a contention as to the lapse of execution proceedings way back in the year 2009 on the basis of the order of this Court;
b) the petitioner has moved the application for amendment based upon the said fact matrix in the above affidavit evidence only on 22.03.2017 and the explanation offered in the affidavit in support of their application for amendment is not plausible;
c) the Court below in its discretion has rejected the application and therefore, the impugned order cannot be a subject matter of deeper scrutiny at the hands of writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the case of TRIMBAK GANGADHAR TELANG Vs. RAMACHANDRA GANESH BHIDE & OTER, AIR 1977 SC 1222.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is rejected in limine.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY