IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.14313/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. SRI S.REVANNA S/O LATE SRI DODDASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SMT SHIVAMMA W/O LATE SRI VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. SRI KUMAR S/O LATE SRI VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. SRI SIDDARAJU S/O LATE SRI VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 5. SRI JAYARAMAIAH S/O LATE SRI DODDASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE HAMLET OFF KODIYALA KARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MOHAN S., ADVOCATE) AND SRI N.C.CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE SRI CHICKKASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE HAMLET OFF KODIYALA KARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159 ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT – SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO.177/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA (ANNEXURE-‘D’) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners being the plaintiffs in O.S.No.177/2013 are knocking at the doors of writ Court for assailing the order dated 02.01.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-‘D’ whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara having favoured the respondent I.A.No.6 has permitted to amend his pleadings.
2. Learned counsel the petitioners argues that the property described in the suit schedule is different from the property now sought to be introduced by way of amendment and therefore such an amendment is impermissible. So arguing, he seeks indulgence in the matter.
3. However, at para-2 of their objections to the subject amendment application, a copy whereof is at Annexure-‘C’, the petitioners have taken the following stand which is now contradicted in the argument:
“2. By way of the amendment the defendant wanted to include the property in his written statement though the said property is [sic] not belong to him. On the other hand, the said property is exclusively and absolutely belongs to these plaintiffs and more over the boundaries furnished in the schedule in the amendment application is [sic] incorrect and the survey number of land sought to be included in the written statement is the subject matter of this suit, to which the present plaintiffs sought for reliefs; hence the very same survey number cannot be sought to be included in the written statement; on that score itself, the present application filed by the defendant is liable to be dismissed.”
In the above circumstances and no other grounds having been urged, this petition being devoid of merits is rejected in limine.
However, all contentions available to both the sides in respect of identity of the property, are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE KLV