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.19052 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SRI.R. DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.4, 5TH CROSS ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560009. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.K. SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI. NAGARAK K. NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O LATE D. KRISHNASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.4413, WEEPING SPRUCE CT., CONCORD, CALIFORNIA - 94521.
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR. PRAVIN VINAYAGAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE DR.A. VINAYAGAM, RESIDING AT NO.854, 10TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560038.
2 . SRI.R. ANATHARAMU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE K. RANGASWAMY, NO.879, 10TH MAIN, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560078.
3 . SMT.R. SUJATHA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O M. LAKSHMI NARAYAN, D/O LATE K. RANGASWAMY, NO.377, 13TH CROSS, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560032.
4 . SMT.R. LATHA RANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O M. RAMESH, D/O LATE K. RANGASWAMY, NO.49, 13TH CROSS, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT, CHAMUNDI NAGAR MAIN ROAD, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560032.
5 . SMT.K. SEETHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, W/O RAGHURAMAIAH, D/O LATE D. KRISHNASWAMY, FLAT NO.1602, N BLOCK, PURVA HIGHLANDS, MALLASANDRA, OFF KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH NICE RING ROAD, BANGALORE – 560062.
6 . SMT. KANTHAMANI VALLABHANATH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O VALLABHANATH, D/O LATE D. KRISHNASWAMY, NO.2371, N.W.OAK, KNOLL PLACE, BEAVERTON OR - 97006, U.S.A. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THONTADHARYA R.K. FOR SRI.P.B. AJIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; MISS SINDHU.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. PRATHIMA.L, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R4 IS H/S V/O DATED 25.07.2018; R3 & R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-7) IN O.S.NO.2298/2009 ON I.A.NO.10 (I.E., ANNEXURE-A) AND TO CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS I.A.NO.10 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR AMENDMENT UNDER ORDER IV RULE 17 CPC IN THE COURT BELOW AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant 1(c) in a partition suit in O.S.No.2299/2009, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 31.03.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A, whereby the 1st respondent/plaintiff’s application in I.A.No.1 filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w section 151 of CPC, 1908 having been favoured, the learned trial Judge has accorded leave to amend the plaint. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and oppose the Writ Petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the Petition Papers, both the sides are broadly in agreement with the suggestion of this court that the impugned order be set-aside and that the subject application be considered afresh in a time bound manner.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; impugned order is set at naught; the matter is remanded to the learned XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, for consideration & disposal afresh, preferably within an outer limit of eight weeks after hearing all the stakeholders.
This order shall not come in the way of recording of evidence through the Commissioner in terms of order dated 16.07.2017 made by the learned trial Judge.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc