IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.2076 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.SEETHARAMAN B.G., S/O SRI.GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.6, “SAKKALE NIVASA, 1ST MAIN, V.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 086.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI.B.S.GURUMURTHY, S/O LATE B.SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, NO.6, “SAKKALE NIVASA, 1ST MAIN, V.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 086.
2. SMT.B.M.LALITHA, W/O SRI.B.S.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.6, “SAKKALE NIVASA, 1ST MAIN, V.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 086.
3. SRI.B.S.MANJUNATH, S/O SRI.SEETHARAMAIAH B., AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, NO.6, “SAKKALE NIVASA, 1ST MAIN, V.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 086.
(BY SRI. Y.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.M.S.GOWRISH, S/O LATE M.L.SUBBAPPA, ... PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.254, ‘SNEHALAYA’, 1ST CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, JNANANJYOTHINAGAR, JNANABHARATHI POST, BENGALURU – 560 056.
2. SRI.M.P.GUNDAPPA, S/O LATE PUTTASHYAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, “ANJANADRI NILAYA”, MALLATHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 056.
3. SRI.H.C.NAGARAJA, S/O SRI.CHINNAPPA, HARAGADDE VILLAGE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HARAGADDE POST, JIGGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2016 PASSED ON THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2 IN O.S.NO.2198/2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE – A ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, CCH – 6 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the defendants in O.S.No.2198/2013 as initially filed for injunctive relief are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 04.11.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure ‘A’ whereby, respondent No.1 – plaintiff’s application filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of CPC having been favoured, the learned trial Judge has granted leave to convert the suit to the one for decree of eviction, by amendment.
2. After service of notice, first respondent – plaintiff has entered appearance through his counsel and resists the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
(a) after filing the suit for injunctive decree, the petitioner – defendants having entered appearance have filed their Written Statement resisting the suit inter alia on the ground that they are in possession of the subject property; thus, the battle lines having been drawn, the respondent No.1 – plaintiff has sought for amendment of his pleadings to convert his injunctive suit to the one for decree of eviction; this cannot be faulted, in the fact matrix of the case;
(b) the petitioners are entitled to oppose the suit by filing their additional Written Statement if any, and therefore, there is no need for the respondent No.1 – plaintiff to file another suit; by this, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in any ways. The trial Court is yet to commence the trial and therefore, the regor of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC,1908 does not stricto- sensu apply.
In the above circumstance, this writ petition is disposed off without granting indulgence, all contentions having been kept open. The petitioners are permitted to file their additional Written Statement (if already not filed), within a period of six weeks.
Since the suit is of the year 2013, a request is made to the learned trial Judge to try and dispose of the same preferably within an outer limit of one year, No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj