Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 54708
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 9603 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 9581 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
IN WP. NO. 9603 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT K V JYOTHI
D/O N. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 48, 2ND A MAIN
3RD CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT
DODDANEKKUNDI
BENGAURU 560 037
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLER,
MR. K.V. SURESH
R/AT NO. 2/2,
OLD POLICE STATION ROAD,
K.R. PURAM, BENGAURU 560036
2.
SMT. K.V JAYABHARATHI
D/O N. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO. 539/16, 2A, 2ND FLOOR,
7TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS
HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGAURU 560 019
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLER
MR. K.V. SURESH
R/AT NO. 2/2,
2
OLD POLICE STATION ROAD,
K.R. PURAM, BENGARUU 560 036
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
SMT LAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
(a). NARAYANAPPA
S/OLTE RAMAIAH SHETTY
RA/T VINAYAKANAGAR
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE
DEVASANDRA K.R.PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
1(a)1.VENKATARAMAN
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE
DEVASANDRA
K.R PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
1(a)2.RAMAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE
DEVASANDRA
K.R PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
1(b). V. RAMASWSAMY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(c). V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
3
1(b)(a). NAGABHUSHANA
S/O LE RAMASWAMY
R/AT ITI NORHT COLONY
DOORAANINAGAR
BENGALURU 560 016
1(b)(b). R. KESHAVAMURTHY
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY
R/AT NO. 1512, MASJID ROAD,
K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
1(b)(c). R. RAJESWARI
D/O LTE V. RAMASWAMY
R/AT NEAR SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE
SHANTHI LAYOUT
K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
1(c)(a). MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY
R/AT ANGADI RAMAIAH HOUSE
BENGALURU 560 092
BYATARAYANAPURA
BELARY ROAD.
1(c)(b). DEEPAK
S/O LATE V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY
R/AT ANGADI RAMAIAH HOUSE
BENGALURU 560 092
BYATARAYANAPURA
BELARY ROAD.
2.
K.N. MOHAN
S/O LATE K.P NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO. 75,
NEW BAZAAR STREET
K.R. PURAM
4
BENGALURU-56 0036
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, V/O DTD
12.05.2022 NOTICE TO R1(A-C) ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED IN
THE RESPECT OF IA NO.XXXII FILED UNDER ORDER VI
RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE SUIT
IN OS.973/2003 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDL.CITY
CIVIL
JUDGE,
BENGALURU
(CCH-26)
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
IN WP. NO. 9581 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1.
K.V.SURESH
S/O N.VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2/2, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD,
K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036
2.
K.V.RAMESH
S/O N.VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2/2, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD,
K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT LAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
(a). NARAYANAPPA
5
S/OLTE RAMAIAH SHETTY
RA/T VINAYAKANAGAR
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE
DEVASANDRA K.R.PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
1(a)1.VENKATARAMAN
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE
DEVASANDRA
K.R PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
1(a)2.RAMAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE
DEVASANDRA
K.R PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
1(b). V. RAMASWSAMY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(c). V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(b)(a). NAGABHUSHANA
S/O LE RAMASWAMY
R/AT ITI NORHT COLONY
DOORAANINAGAR
BENGALURU 560 016
1(b)(b). R. KESHAVAMURTHY
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY
R/AT NO. 1512, MASJID ROAD,
K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
6
1(b)(c). R. RAJESWARI
D/O LTE V. RAMASWAMY
R/AT NEAR SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE
SHANTHI LAYOUT
K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU 560 036
1(c)(a). MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY
R/AT ANGADI RAMAIAH HOUSE
BENGALURU 560 092
BYATARAYANAPURA
BELARY ROAD.
1(c)(b). DEEPAK
S/O LATE V. LAKSHMANA SWAMY
R/AT ANGADI RAMAIAH HOUSE
BENGALURU 560 092
BYATARAYANAPURA
BELARY ROAD.
2.
K.N. MOHAN
S/O LATE K.P NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO. 75,
NEW BAZAAR STREET
K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU 56 0036
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O
DTD
12.05.2022
NOTICE
TO
R1(A-C)
ARE
DISPENSED WITH, R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED IN
THE RESPECT OF IA NO.XXXII FILED UNDER ORDER VI
RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE SUIT
7
IN OS.973/2003 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDL.CITY
CIVIL
JUDGE,
BENGALURU
(CCH-26)
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THESE
WRIT
PETITIONS
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
The captioned writ petition is filed by the
plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order dated
11.04.2022 passed by the learned X Additional City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore on I.A.No.XXXII
filed
under
Order
VI
rule
17
of
CPC
in
O.S.No.973/2003
as
per
Annexure-A
seeking
amendment of plaint.
The present petitioners have instituted a suit for
specific performance of contract and for declaration in
O.S.No.973/2003. The present petitioners asserts that
defendant No.1/respondent No.1 has entered into an
agreement
to sell for a sale consideration
of
`2,25,000/-.
The
petitioners
further
claim
that
8
defendant No.1/respondent No.1 has executed a sale
agreement on 07.02.2000 and received an advance
amount of `25,000/-. The present suit is filed alleging
that
defendant
No.1
having
entered
into
an
agreement, has failed to perform his part of contract
and therefore, the present suit has been instituted.
3.
Defendant No.2 claims to be the purchaser. The
plaintiffs/petitioners claim that it is only after filing of
the suit they came to know about the collateral
transaction and therefore, filled an interlocutory
application
and
the
subsequent
transferee
i.e.,
defendant No.2 was brought on record. Defendant
No.2 has filed written statement and stoutly denied
the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant
No.2 claims that he has purchased the suit schedule
property from the deceased original owner defendant
No.1
namely,
Lakshmamma
on
19.09.2002.
Defendant No.2 also claimed that pursuant to sale
9
deed, possession was also delivered to defendant
No.2/respondent No.2 herein.
4.
The petitioners herein, to substantiate their
claim, have lead in ocular evidence and have also
produced
documentary
evidence.
The
defendant
No.2/respondent No.2 has also lead in rebuttal
evidence. After conclusion of trial, the petitioners
have filed the present application seeking amendment
of plaint to incorporate paragraphs 5(b) to 5(d). By
way
of
proposed
amendment,
petitioners
have
claimed that the said pleadings in the proposed
amendment are only explanatory in nature and the
said proposed amendment would assist the Court in
adjudicating the actual controversy between the
parties. It was further contended that the proposed
amendment would only throw some light over the
description and location of the properties, which are
the subject matter of the suit. The said application
10
was strongly resisted by defendant No.2/respondent
No.2.
5.
The
learned
Judge
having
examined
rival
contentions, has proceeded to reject the application
on the premise that the present suit is 19 years old
matter and there is inordinate delay in seeking the
proposed amendment. The learned Judge was of the
view that no satisfactory reasons are forth coming in
omitting to seek the said amendments at the earlier
stage of the proceedings. The learned Judge has come
to conclusion that proposed amendment is not all
necessary to determine the real controversy involved
in the case.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating
the grounds urged in writ petition would vehemently
argue and contend that the proposed amendment is
very much necessary as there is some ambiguity in
11
the description of the suit schedule property referred
to in the suit agreement. The plaintiffs apprehension
is, in the event they succeed, they may face some
difficulties
in
executing
the
decree
and
the
respondents/defendants may take undue advantage
and the decree in all probability may become un-
executable. It is in this background, learned counsel
for the petitioners would point out that the finding of
the learned Trial Judge that the proposed amendment
is not at all necessary to decide the actual controversy
between the parties is misconceived and contrary to
the material on record. She would also point out that
the proposed amendment would neither expand the
scope of litigation nor any new prayer or relief is
sought. She would contend that the proposed
amendment is entirely based on the existing pleas
ra
