IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.55210 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI.C.R. RAJU, S/O. LATE C.K. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS LECTURER, CHAPURADADODDY KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DIST.571 428. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. C.M. RAMANNA, S/O. MALLE GOWDA, DEAD BY HIS LRS.
NOTE: KADAMMA SINCE DECEASED, HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES WERE ALREADY ON RECORD 1(a) SUKANYA, W/O. LATE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT DR. RAMAKRSIHNA’S HOUSE 4TH CROSS, BERAGARAHALLI KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DIST. 571 428.
1(b) JAGADEESHA, S/O. LATE C.M. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
1(a) & 1(b) RESIDENTS OF CHAPURADODDI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK – 571 428.
1(c) SMT. SUDHA W/O. MALLEGE GOWDA D/O. LATE C.M. RAMANNA, HOUSE WIFE R/O. SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DIST. 571 428.
2. CHAMANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHAMANAHALLY, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DIST. 571 428. REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.347/2012 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR, IN REJECTING I.A.NO.8 VIDE ANNEX-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALOW THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. Janardhana.G., learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 27.11.2018 by which, the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in the application for amendment and has submitted that in the application for amendment, the petitioner had clearly stated that he would not lead any evidence and only wants to correct the description of the property and wanted to incorporate relief of declaration. However, the aforesaid aspect has not been appreciated by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, petitioner is granted liberty to file an application for review of the order dated 27.11.2018. Needless to state, in case the application is filed within one week from the date of issue of certified copy of the order passed today, the trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law, by taking into consideration the averments made in the application, specifically, in view of the fact that petitioner does not want to lead any evidence in support of the application for amendment. All the contentions are kept open.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp