IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.33966 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI K M MAHADEVAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O MADASHETTY, R/AT D.NO.1002/1, 2ND CROSS, NES COLONY, MALAVAHALLY TOWN, HEBBAL BADAVANE, MYSURU CITY. … PETITIONER (BY SRI B S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI M S BHASKARA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE K SRINIVASA RAO, JUDGMENT WRITER, KARNATAKA JUDICIAL ACADEMY, CRESCENT HOUSE, CRESCENT ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001.
2 SMT G PARVATHI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.LIG 41, BELAVATHA HOUSING BOARD, R S NAIDU NAGAR, MYSURU – 570007. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANEES ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 11.11.2019, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2018 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE 5TH ADDL. 1ST CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, WHEREIN ERRONEOUSLY REJECTED THE I.A.NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.1003/2012 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2018, PASSED ON I.A.NO.8, BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE 5TH ADDL. 1ST CIVIL JUDGE AT MYSURU, IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.1003/2012, COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the 2nd defendant in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.1003/2012, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 31.05.2018 whereby his application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w section 151 of CPC, seeking leave to amend the Written Statement has been rejected by the learned V Addl. 1st Civil Judge, Mysuru, vide Annexure – A. After service of notice, 1st respondent-plaintiff having entered appearance through his counsel, resists the Writ Petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:
(a) the Written Statement resisting the injunctive suit was filed on 4.8.2015 and the petitioner has filed the subject application on 2.1.2017; thus the gap between the filing of the Written Statement and filing of the subject application is not too long and is insignificant;
(b) the other reason for favouring the subject application is that the rigor of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is not as militant as it would be if the leave to amend the plaint was sought for; it has been the consistent view of Courts that ordinarily the defendant has to be treated more lenient in the matter of amending of pleadings qua the petitioner; and (c) the amendment as such is amplificatory in nature of the already existing pleadings i.e., the grounds already taken and that nothing new is sought to be introduced by the respondent-plaintiff more specially when he can resist the amended suit by filing the Addl. Pleadings, if he so chooses even without the leave of the court.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; impugned order is set at naught; subject application is favoured; leave having been granted, the petitioner is permitted to amend the Written Statement on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st respondent-plaintiff within one month or before the next date of hearing of the suit whichever is earlier failing which the order now quashed shall stand resurrected.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
The trial court shall proceed with the matter in terms of amended Written Statement.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc