IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.55704 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SRI.T.A. KALEEMULLA, S/O LATE SRI.K.T. AZMATHULLA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3, BALLAPPA GARDEN "A" STREET, SHIVAJINGAR, BANGALORE-560051. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNEL A/W SRI. S.ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE) AND SRI. MOHAMMED ILYAS BASHA, S/O SRI. O.M.ISMAIL SAB, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25/1-2, 5TH CROSS, BORE BANK ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE-560046. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. IMRAN PASHA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.11.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 IN O.S.NO.2621/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CCH-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in an ejectment suit in O.S.No.2621/2017, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 02.11.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A, whereby his amendment application in I.A.No.10 filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w section 151 of CPC, 1908, has been dismissed by the learned III Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. After service of notice, the respondent/plaintiff having entered appearance trough his counsel, resists the Writ Petition.
2. Having heard the learned Senior Advocate Sri.Vivek Reddy for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
(a) the conduct of the petitioner as reflected by the order sheet shows that there is some effort being made to drag on the proceedings by filing the applications one after another, and later cleverly withdrawing a few of them without much justification;
(b) much of the intended amendment is already a part of the pleadings in petitioner’s Additional Written Statement which he filed after his first application for amendment was favoured on 19.02.2018; the amendment now sought for, apart from being unnecessary, even otherwise is fraught with delay and lack of due diligence which are the statutory sine qua non for motion of amendment of pleadings; the said amendment in question could have been sought for when his application in I.A.No.7 was pressed into service; this having not been done, the subject application is rightly rejected in the absence of plausible explanation; and (c) the impugned order otherwise also cannot be faltered since it suffers the rigor of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 as interpreted by the Apex Court in MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRA VS. ROOP RANI MEHRA, (2018) 2 SCC 132, the trial having been accomplished and the matter having been heard half way through.
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc