IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.26303 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O.LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT CHIKKSARANGI VILLAGE GULURU HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK-576 221 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.V.MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MAYAMMA W/O.LATE GULAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. THIMMAVVA W/O.LATE GULAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. C.G.SIDDARAJU S/O.LATE GULAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL R/AT CHIKKSARANGI VILLAGE GULURU HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK-576 221 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2018 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUMKUR IN O.S.NO.90/2013 ON IA FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner being the plaintiff in a declaratory suit in O.S.No. 90/2013 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the order dated 16.01.2018 a copy whereof is at Annexure-E whereby, the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru has rejected his application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 seeking amendment.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) the suit is of the year 2013 having been filed on 13.03.2013; the Written Statement has been filed on 22.08.2013; by way of amendment, petitioner intended to include a land bearing Sy.No.82/2 of Chikkasarangi Village; this application is belated and the explanation offered for the delay is not plausible;
b) on the basis of pleadings of the parties the issues having been framed, the trial has already begun; the petitioner having closed his evidence, the case is posted for the cross-examination of DW1 and at this stage, the application for the amendment is moved; and, c) the impugned order denying leave to amend the plaint being the product of exercise of discretion, the same cannot suffer a deeper scrutiny at the hands of Writ Court vide decision of the Apex Court in TRIMBAK GANGADHAR TILANG VS. RAMCHANDRA GANESH BIDE AIR 1977 SC 1222, para 3.
The writ petition thus being devoid of merits, is rejected in limine.
Sd/- JUDGE KLV