IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.9484/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI N.B.SATYANARAYANA RAO S/O N.S. BHEEMA RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI N.B. RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O N.S. BHEEMA RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3. SRI N.B. SUBRAMANYA RAO S/O N.S. BHEEMA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF CHANNAGIRI TOWN CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 PETITIONER NOS. 1 & 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI N.B. RAGHAVENDRA RAO -2ND PETITIONER.
(BY SRI. M.B. RYAKA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI K.S. SUBBANNA CHAR S/O LATE N SETHU RAO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ... PETITIONERS 2. SRI N.S. ANANTHA RAO S/O LATE N. SETHU RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. SRI N.S. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE N. SETHU RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. SRI N.S. RAMESH S/O LATE N. SETHU RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF CHANNAGIRI TOWN CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.2.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.168/2010 ON THE APPLICATION/ I.A. FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS HEREIN BY THE HON’BLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, CONCURRENT CHARGE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE OF CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Defendants-1 to 3 in O.S.No.168/2010 have filed this writ petition questioning the legality of order dated 17.02.2017 passed by Addl.Civil Judge, Davanagere, C/c of Prl.Civil Judge, Channagiri – Annexure-D allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.
2. Plaintiffs have filed the above said suit for the relief of declaration to declare that they are the owners of Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and for possession of ‘B’ schedule property which has been described as 35 guntas in Sy.No.4/P1 of Gurupura village. By the proposed amendment, plaintiffs are seeking to incorporate the fact of encroachment made by defendants as indicated in the Court Commissioner’s report. In other words, plaintiffs are attempting to place reliance of encroachment by defendants based on the report of Court Commissioner to support their claim. Trial Court having noticed that plaintiffs have already sought for possession of 35 guntas of land in ‘B’ Schedule property and they have alleged in the plaint that defendants have encroached the said land and same is only amplification of existing pleading, has allowed the application for amendment. Since there has been delay in filing said application, costs has been awarded in favour of defendants.
I find that there is no error committed by the trial Court calling for interference. Hence, writ petition is hereby dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE *sp