This petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.18/2009 on

the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM,

Davanagere (for short, 8the civil Court9), and she has

impugned the civil Court9s orders dated 13.06.2016. The

civil Court by its two orders of even date has rejected the

petitioner9s two applications (I.A.No.24 and I.A.No.26). The

petitioner9s application (I.A.No.24) under Section 151 of

CPC is for correction of the year that is stated by the

petitioner

in

her

cross-examination,

and

the

other

application (I.A.No.26) is for amendment of the plaint under

Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to

substitute description of the properties in the plaint and to

include certain properties mentioned in the application.

2.

The petitioner9s case is that even in her cross-

examination she has stated that the subject property,

which bears Door No.1601/30, is purchased during the

year 2002 but while recording the cross-examination, the

civil Court by an inadvertent error has recorded that she

6

admits to the purchase of the said property in the year

2009; as such, the application is filed for correction of this

inadvertent error. This application is opposed by some of

the respondents/defendants and not by all. The civil Court

has

rejected

the

application

observing

that

cross-

examination is recorded in the open Court and the

petitioner has signed the deposition; if any correction was

required, she should have brought the same to the Court9s

notice immediately.

3.

The petitioner9s anxiety, as canvassed by her

learned counsel, Sri Hareesh Bhandary.T., is that the

opinion that she has admitted the purchase of the said

property in the year 2009 could be held against her, and

therefore it requires to be corrected. However, this Court

must observe that the courts are required to read the entire

evidence and not a particular statement in isolation to

decide the concerned Issue. If this remains undisputed, as

also the circumstances mentioned by the civil Court, this

Court is of the considered view that the petition against

7

rejection of the petitioner9s application for correction of the

deposition must be disposed of observing that the decision

on the concerned Issue must be on the holistic reading of

the entire evidence on record.

4.

The petitioner9s other application (I.A.No.26) is

for correction of description of certain properties in the

plaint and for including another property. The inclusion is

of a property which the petitioner contends is purchased

from

joint

family

nucleus.

None

of

the

defendants/respondents have contested this application.

However, the Civil Court has rejected this application on

the ground that the petitioner has not placed on record any

circumstance justifying why they could not file an

application for amendment earlier. The civil Court has

observed that Issues are framed way back in the year 2014

and the application is filed only in the year 2016.

5.

It

transpires

from

the

record

that

the

petitioner9s case is that she is not only entitled to a share in

the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the

8

plaint [which is now to be corrected], but in all those

properties which are acquired from joint family nucleus.

She was not aware of all the properties as on the date of the

suit and hence she could not include the property now

proposed to be included in the schedule. The delay if any

in filing the application is bonafide. These circumstances

are not controverted, and it is also not controverted that at

the instances of the respondents/defendants, Issue No.6 is

framed on whether suit must be dismissed for non

inclusion of all the joint family properties.

6.

The commencement of the evidence by itself

cannot be a reason to reject the application for amendment

if it is established that the amendment would be necessary

for complete and effective adjudication and the other side is

not put to injustice. The Court could exercise the

discretion

in

allowing

the

application

if

the

two

circumst