IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.52292/2018(GM-CPC) & WRIT PETITION No.6303/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri. Narayanaswamy, S/o. Late Muniswamapa, Aged about 67 years, R/a. Panasachowdanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk-563 125. Senior citizenship is not Claimed. ...PETITIONER (By Sri. Ramakrishna Hegde, for Sri. Veeranna.G.Tigadi, Adv.) AND:
1. Sri.Gopalakrishna, S/o. Late Channarayappa, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Panasachowdanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk-563 125.
2. Smt.Prema, D/o. Late Channarayappa, Aged about 31 years, Jannaghatta Village, Kolar Taluk-563 101.
3. Venkatarathnamma, D/o. Late Channarayappa, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Panasachowdanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk-563 125.
4. Sri. Manjunath, S/o. Late Channarayappa, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Panasachowdanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk-563 125.
5. Smt.Rajamma, D/o. Late Narayanappa, Aged about 52 years, Mastenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk-563 135.
6. Smt.Chowdamma, D/o. Late Venkataswamy, Aged about 61 years, 7. Sri.Shivanna, S/o. Late Venkataswamy, Aged about 41 years, 8. Sri. Chalapathy, S/o. Late Venkataswamy, Aged about 39 years, 9. Sri.Narayanaswamy, S/o. Late Venkataswamy, Aged about 36 years, Respondent Nos.5 to 9 Are r/o. Panasachowdanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk-563 125.
10. Smt.Padma, D/o. Late Venkataswamy, W/o. Srinivas, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Shettimadamangala Village, Kolar Taluk-563 101.
11. Smt.Anusuya, D/o. Late Venkataswamy, W/o. Srinivas, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Kuruburu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk-563 125.
12. Sri. Munivenkatappa, S/o. Late Muiswamappa, Aged about 57 years, R/o. Panasachowdanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk-563 125.
13. Smt. Channamma, D/o. Late Muiswamappa, W/o. Muniyappa, Aged about 60 years, R/o. Ankathatti Village, Kolar Taluk-563 101.
14. Smt.Lakshmamma, D/o. Late Muiswamappa, W/o. Late Krishnappa, Aged about 53 years, R/o. Bestenahalli Village, Kamadenahalli Hobli, Kolar Taluk-563 101. ...RESPONDENTS These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 in O.S.No.27/2011 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani vide Annx-G.
These Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.09.2018 passed on I.A. No. 18 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and I.A. No.19 filed under Order VIII Rule 1A of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S. No.27/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani.
2. The said applications have been rejected for the reason that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed the applications under the fag end of the proceedings seeking for amendment to the written statement, to put up their claim that they have some other family members and also to furnish separate genealogical tree of their family which cannot be permitted, in view of the admission made by the learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 and 3 that the alleged real joint family members who are left out by the plaintiff are not parties to the unregistered partition deed dated 02.01.2005.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner though made an attempt to submit that the amendment sought by the petitioner is necessary, the same cannot be countenanced in view of the well reasoned order passed by the Trial Court. The amendment sought by the petitioner if allowed, would adversely affect the rights of the other side. It is not in dispute that defendant Nos.2 and 3 during the cross-examination of PW-1 have not suggested regarding the alleged genealogical tree and the alleged partition deed dated 02.01.2005. Filing of the application for amendment of the written statement after the lapse of seven years despite allowing the amendment applications filed by the petitioner on the earlier occasions would indicate that the present application filed is an after- thought and only to procrastinate the matter.
No ground made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order.
Writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*