IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.7086/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDARAMAIAH SHETTY S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT SETTIHALLI VILLAGE, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI KALYAN R., ADV.] AND:
1. SMT.CHANDRAKALA W/O RADHAKRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT RADIO MECHANIC PULAGUL VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLY TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101 SMT.SATHYA LAKSHMI W/O VENUGOPALAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DEAD BY LRs 2. MANJUNATHA S/O VENUGOPALAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 3. SRILAKSHMI S/O VENUGOPALAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
RESPONDENT Nos.2 & 3 ARE R/AT NO.23, 17TH SURVEY NUMBER, 1ST STAGE MARUTHI NAGAR, ULLAL POST, BANGALORE-560056 4. SMT.DHANAMMA W/O SATHYNARAYANA SHETTY AGED MAJOR, R/AT HOTELIER HOGALAGERE VILLAGE & POST, SRINIVASPUR TALUK-563135 5. SMT.RAJAMMA W/O SHANKARANARAYANA SHETTY AGED MAJOR R/AT YEDARURU VILLAGE & POST SRINIVASPUR TALUK-563135 6. SMT.B.R.VIJAYA LAKSHMI W/O SIDDARAMAIAH SHETTY AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT SETTIHALLI VILLAGE AMBAJI DURGA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.01.2019 ON I.A.NO.29 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.94/2008 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTAMANI IN O.S.NO.94/2008 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.29 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.01.2019 passed on I.A.No.29 in O.S.No.94/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chintamani whereby I.A.No.29 filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking for amendment of the written statement has been rejected.
2. O.S.No.94/2008 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for the relief of partition of the suit properties. The petitioner herein earlier had filed an amendment application seeking amendment of the written statement which was later-on not pressed by him. Subsequently after the plaintiff has argued the case on merits, this application has been filed by the petitioner. Amendment sought by the petitioner to add paragraphs 9[a] to 9[c], 11[a] to 11[e] as proposed in the I.A.No.29 certainly would change the nature of the suit, that too at this belated stage, would obviously prejudice the rights of the plaintiff.
3. No satisfactory explanation is offered by the petitioner to file this amendment application at the fag end of the proceedings which necessarily deserves to be considered by this Court. On the other hand, it can be inferred that the petitioner has not acted with due diligence in filing this application, appears to protract the proceedings.
4. Exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.