IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50011 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M MANJU S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE M RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST 3. SRI. M. VENUGOPALA S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST 4. SMT. M. ANITHA D/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST 5. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE KURLAPPA, W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT THALAGAVARA, KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 6. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT THALAGAVARA, KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 7. SMT. KOMALAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT THALAGAVARA, KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT (BY SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. BABY BALAKRISHNAN W/O. SRI. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. 389, 18TH ‘A’ MAIN, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 049 2. SRI. KUMAR C/O MUNIRAJU R/AT BOMMENAHALLI, BUDIGERE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 049 ... PETITIONERS 3. SRI. SHIVASHANKARAPPA M @ SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT RAMAMURTHY NAGARA MAIN ROAD, CANARA BANK BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 049 4. SMT. NORA MENEZES W/O GILBERT MENEZES R/AT NO. 103/2, 3RD ‘B’ CROSS, DOCTORS LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032 5. SMT. SELVI W/O V. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO. 41ST MAIN ROAD, GANGA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032 6. SRI. CHETHAN R/AT NO. 101/2, RAILWAY TANK, NEAR WATER TANK, HORAMAVU VILLAGE, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 043. REP BY GPA HOLDER BUDDHA RAM PRAJAPPATHI 7. SMT. SUNITHA D/O. C NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.113, 2ND MAIN ROAD, G-CROSS, CHIKKA ABBAIAH REDDY LAYOUT, BALAJAI ROAD, NEAR ST. VINCENT PALLOTI CHURCH, BANASWADI, BENGALURU – 560 043 8. SMT. N ANITHA D/O. MR. C. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 113, 2ND MAIN ROAD, G-CROSS, CHIKKA ABBAIAH REDDY LAYOUT, BALAJAI ROAD, NEAR ST. VINCENT PALLOTI CHURCH, BANASWADI, BENGALURU – 560 043 9. SMT. R. M. FLAVIA W/O RACHARDS SEQUIERA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO. 797, 11TH A MAIN HBR 1ST STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 043 10. SMT. ANANDAVALLI BABU W/O. HARRY WILFRED A. N. BABU, CO OWNERS, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO. 6, ANN’S VILLA, 12TH CROSS, EJIPURA, VIVEK NAGARA POST OFFICE, BENGALURU – 560 047 11. SRI. GOVINDARAJ T AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 31/1, SANGAM CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 042 12. SRI. R. KOTEESWARAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT 26/1, 2ND MAIN, SHAMANNA GOWDA LAYOUT, ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 560 008 13. SMT. KRISHNAVENI W/O. SHIVARAM ADIGA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 89, GURUDATTA LAYOUT, NEAR DATTATHREYA TEMPLE, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085 14. SRI. SURESH KUMAR S/O LATE V. SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 52, NEERAJA RESIDENCY, NO. 16, OIL MILL ROAD, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 084 15. SRI. R. VIJAYANANDAN S/O RANGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 35, NMR LAYOUT, UDAY NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 016 16. SRI. BIJU JOHN S/O LATE V. A. JOHN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MALIACKAL HOUSE, MANICKATH CROSS ROAD, KOCHI – 682 016 17. SMT. MARY THOMAS W/O. DR. P. V. THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT PULLUKARA HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, IRIJALAKUDA, MUKUNDAPURAMA TALUK, KERALA.
REP BY PA HOLDER MR. P. ANTOO ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. K. SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7568/2006 BY THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY ORDER TO ALLOW APPLICATION ON I.A.NO.18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC FILED IN O.S.NO.7568/2006 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JDUGE, BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a declaration suit in O.S.No.7568/2006 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 26.09.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F, whereby their application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 having been rejected by the learned XXIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has denied leave to amend the plaint. After service of notice, respondent Nos.4 to 10 and 12 have entered appearance through their counsel and resist the Writ Petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the amendment now sought for introducing the phoded Sy.No.522/1 is founded on the earlier judgment and decree that are already set at naught and suit is restored after remand.
3. Under the Proviso to Section 135, where there is a declaratory decree, the revenue entries need to be mutated to accord with the same; this phodi is thus relatable to the decree which is now set aside; however, the question of new number being entered to the pleadings in the suit does not arise, since the decree based on which this new number was entered to the Revenue Records itself is set aside and the entire matter is at large in the trial where it is open to the petitioners to urge about the identification/demarcation of the subject land on the basis of material on record.
4. The other ground for not granting indulgence in the matter is, that the subject application filed under Order VI Rule 17 is badly hit by the Proviso since the trial having been accomplished the matter is now posed for arguments. Due diligence too is wanting from the side of petitioners.
5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed off.
It is needless to mention that the Court below shall advert to all the revenue records placed on record after hearing the other side also.
It is not necessary to reiterate earlier directions for early disposal of the suit.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-