IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50753 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. CHIKKA VENKATAREDDY, S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/OF ALAGEDARENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, PINCODE – 561 209. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA RAO H.R.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SMT. CHINNAMMA, W/O JARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2 . SRI. VENKATESHAPPA, S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3 . SRI. VENKATANARAYANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4 . SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS , 5 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDENTS OF ALAGEDARENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, PINCODE – 561 209. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2019 ON I.A.NO.16 IN O.S.NO.211/2014, ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE (ANNEXURE-A); AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.211/2014 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 28.08.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gudibande, having rejected his application filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC,1908, has refused to grant leave to amend the plaint.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, reasoning of the Court below cannot be faltered inasmuch as the learned Trial Judge at para 9 of the impugned order has observed as under with which this Court broadly concurs, though it’s language is too poor:
“9. In the instant case, the defendants have filed the written statement before this court on 12.05.2015 and wherein the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. The present application is filed on 24.11.2018. The very fact of filing of the written statement well with the knowledge of the plaintiff. So far he has not sought for amendment to incorporate the relief of declaratory relief in prayer column within 3 years from the date of denial of title of the plaintiff by the defendants in respect of suit schedule property. After lapse of 03 years from the date of denial of the title of plaintiff over the suit schedule property by way of filing of written statement of defendants, the plaintiff has moved this application to amend the plaint as prayed in the I.A. is barred by limitation as per article 58 of Limitation Act. On perusal of the materials available on record, it is difficult to found that despite due diligence, the plaintiff could not take up the plea set up in the application before commencement of trial in the above matter.”
In the above circumstances, writ petition being devoid of merits, is rejected in limine.
However, liberty is reserved to make the impugned order a ground as provided under Section 105 read with Order XLIII Rule 1A of the amended Code, for challenging the judgment & decree if and when made adverse to his interest, the contention in this regard having been kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE DS