IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.10555/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI C.BASAVARAJ S/O LATE CHANNASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28 & 29 “NITHYANANDA ENCLAVE”
BEHIND ASHWINI KALYANA MANTAP 2ND STGAE, SRIRAMPURA-570 001 MYSORE CITY ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.BADRINATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI C.MALLESH S/O LATE CHANNASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1032, GEETHA ROAD CAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE CITY – 570 004 2. SRI C.SURESH S/O LATE CHANNASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1032, GEETHA ROAD CAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE CITY – 570 004 3. SMT. C.PREMA D/O LATE CHANNASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.58 II STAGE, N BLOCK KUVEMPUNAGAR ADICHUNCHANGIRI, CROSS ROAD MYSORE CITY – 570 023 4. SRI C.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE CHANNASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1032, GEETH ROAD CAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE CITY – 570 004 5. SMT. C.KAMAKSHI D/O LATE CHANNASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.312, 9TH MAIN I ‘B’ CROSS, I STAGE BRINDAVAN EXTENSION CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE CITY – 570 004 6. SMT. B.S.SHYLAJA W/O H.L.CHANDRASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1187, 4/11TH MAIN E AND F BLOCK RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSORE – 570 023 7. SRI KIRAN .C.V S/O H.S.VASANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. SMT. SNEHA TALAK W/O KIRAN C.V.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.7 & 8 RESIDING AT NO.206 24TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS NEAR M.C.H.S.COLONY BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560 076 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.N.RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; R6 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.10.2013 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE IN O.S.NO.322/2010 ON I.A.NO.XIV AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 whereby the trial Court has dismissed the petitioner’s application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint.
2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the merits of the petition and perused the record. It is relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the trial Court in dismissing the application:
“This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff to declare that the partition deed dated 07-10-2005 is not binding on the Plaintiff and for partition and mesne profits. The Plaintiff in the original plaint has stated that the said Partition Deed was got executed on misrepresentation. The Plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration that the said partition deed is null and void. Now by way of amendment, the Plaintiff wants to plead that the Plaintiff was paid a nominal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in consideration of the respective shares. Therefore the Partition Deed dated 07-10-2005 is unequal and has to be reopened. Therefore he wants to alter the relief for declaring that the partition is unequal and inequitable and not binding and wants to reopen the partition.
The evidence of PW-1 is already recorded and the case is posted for the evidence of the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not pleaded in the original plaint that he has received the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In his cross- examination he has admitted the execution of the partition deed and the receipt of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore the Plaintiff now wants to amend the plaint in according with the facts stated by him in his cross-examination. The perusal of the original plaint shows that it is not his case that the partition is unequal and he has received the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- but it is his case that the said deed was entered on misrepresentation and therefore he had sought for declaration that the said partition deed is null and void. Therefore if the proposed amendment is allowed, it could change the nature of the suit and would seriously prejudice the Defendant. Hence, there is no merit in the application and the same is to be dismissed ”
3. I find no error in the above reasoning of the trial Court to warrant interference. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR