IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.46686 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI.N.A.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, R/AT NERALUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 107.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT.K.M.ARCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.K.MITHUN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.GOPAL K KHAITANI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O KUNDAN DAS P KHAITANI, R/AT NO.807, “DELPHI – P”, PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS, NO.20, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029.
2. SMT. ANUSUYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE MUNINARAYANA REDDY, 3. SMT. NANDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNINARAYANA REDDY, 4. SRI.KIRAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNINARAYANA REDDY, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NERALUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 107.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT ANEKAL IN O.S.NO.1452/2006 ALLOWING I.A.NO.6 FILED U/ VI RULE 17 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE – A TO AMEND THE PLAINT AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the second defendant in O.S.No.2880/2005 which is renumbered as O.S.No.1452/2006 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 16.08.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Anekal having favoured respondent-plaintiff’s’ application filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908, has granted leave to amend the plaint for introducing the prayer for refund of the amount allegedly paid to the petitioner.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the impugned order in substance is relatable to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which has got overriding effect over the provision of Order VI Rule 17 and therefore, the constraints enacted in those provisions of CPC for seeking amendment of the pleadings do not govern the case.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is not founded on the reason on which this Court is sustaining the same, pales into insignificance inasmuch as writ jurisdiction is not invokable where the impugned order has brought about a just & lawful result, notwithstanding the wrong provisions of law quoted in the application on which such order is made and also the wrong reasons mentioned therein.
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits is rejected in limine.
It is open to the petitioner to file additional Written Statement if he so chooses within a period of four weeks. All other contention of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE DS