IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.29240/2018 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI P.DEVARAJU S/O LATE POTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.230, NEETHI MARGA SIDDARTHANAGARA NAZARABAD MOHALLA MYSURU-570011 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI P.NATARAJU, ADV.] AND:
1. SMT.UMADEVI W/O N.G.RAYKAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.LIG 62, 1ST STAGE KUVEMPUNAGARA CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU CITY-570023 NOW R/AT NO.281-A B.H. ROAD, NEAR HALAPPA CIRCLE WARD NO.11, BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301 2. SRI M.C.RAMESH S/O M.S.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, SHIVASHAKTHI NILAYA BLOCK NO.13, SBM COLONY SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU CITY-570023 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI S.NAGARAJA, ADV. FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AT MYSURU IN O.S.NO.431/2018 ON I.A.3 DATED 21.06.2018/20.06.2018 ANNEX-G AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW I.A.3 ON IT'S FILE AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has assailed the order impugned on the ground that the word “second” was inserted in para No.5 of the plaint in line No.5 by inadvertence and to delete the same, I.A.NO.3 was filed in the pending suit proceedings, seeking for amendment of the plaint prior to the commencement of trial and the same does not change the nature of the suit.
3. The order impugned cannot be held to be irregular or illegal for the reason that, the relief claimed in the plaint is for the specific performance of contract whereas the defendants have denied the execution of the sale agreement and it is their defense that the defendant No.1 has already executed registered sale deed of the suit property on 10.11.2017 in favour of the defendant No.2 i.e., prior to filing of the present suit. The petitioner is making an attempt to establish his possession over the suit property based on the contents of the alleged sale agreement. The admission made in the plaint in para No.5 would depict that after the second payment of advance amount, the first defendant had put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property.
4. The amendment sought for, to delete the word “second” would certainly change the nature of the suit and accordingly the order passed by the Trial Court cannot be found fault with.
Writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.