IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.50795/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MRS. DAWN D9SOUZA
SINCE DEAD BY LR9s.
1.
MRS. PRUDENCE CHITTIAPPA,
W/O. M.N. CHITTIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.72, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU 3 560 052.
2.
MR. RAOUL CHITTIAPPA
S/O. M.N. CHITTIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.72, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU 3 560 052.
3.
MR. NIKHIL CHITTIAPPA
S/O. M.N. CHITTIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
NO.72, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU 3 560 052.
... PETITIONERS
(BY MR. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CORPORATION CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 3 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
- 2 -
2.
THE REVENUE OFFICER,
B.B.M.P., K.R. PURAM WARD,
K.R. PURAM,
BENGALURU 3 560 036.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.5 IN O.S.NO.635
OF 2010 PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU
RURAL
DISTRICT,
BENGALURU
VIDE
ANNEXURE-E
AND
CONSEQUENTLY REJECT IA NO.5.
THIS
WRIT
PETITION
HAVING
BEEN
HEARD
AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18/08/2022 AND COMING FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT
OF
DAY,
THE
COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The question involved in this writ petition is,
whether the amendment of written statement is
permissible even if any alternative or an additional
ground or to substitute for the original plea.
2.
The present writ petition is preferred by the
plaintiff assailing the order dated 07/09/2018 passed
on I.A.No.V in O.S.No.635/2010 on the file of the III
Addl. Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru
(hereinafter referred to as <the trial Court= for short),
- 3 -
whereby the application filed by the defendants under
Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (<CPC=) seeking permission to
amend the written statement was allowed by the trial
Court.
3.
The parties herein are referred to as per
their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
4.
Suit for permanent injunction in respect of
the
suit
schedule
property
bearing
Sy.No.123,
measuring 11 acres 36 guntas (including 21 guntas of
kharab land) along with the boundaries contending
that defendants are trying to demolish the wall in Sy.
No.123.
5.
The defendants filed a written statement on
28.11.2011 denying the averments made in the plaint
and contended that the defendants have not passed
- 4 -
any order for demolition of any structure or building
and the allegations made against the defendants are
false and also stated that the defendants may be
permitted to amend the written statement, if any, in
changed circumstances of the case and sought for
dismissal of the suit.
6.
When the matter was set in for cross-
examination
of
PW.1,
the
defendants
filed
an
application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC on
15/02/2018 seeking to amend the written statement
and to add the additional contention that recently they
came to know that the present suit has been filed to
knock away the portion of the valuable property
belonging to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
(<BBMP=) encroaching into the portion of Tank bed
area in Sy.No.124 and as such, amendment sought in
respect of written statement is just and necessary for
effective adjudication of the case on hand.
- 5 -
7.
The plaintiffs filed their objections to I.A.
No.5
stating
that
the
defendants
have
falsely
contended that the plaintiffs have encroached upon
the portion of the tank bed area in Sy.No.124,
situated
at
Pattandur
Village,
K.R.Puram
Hobli,
Bengaluru, and there is no justification for the
defendants to seek an amendment of the written
statement as the suit is in respect of the land bearing
Sy.No.123 of the said village more precisely after
commencement of trial and the amendment sought is
in respect of Sy.No.124 has no bearing in the present
suit and sought to dismiss the application.
8.
On hearing the parties, the trial Court by
its order dated 07/09/2018 allowed I.A.No.5 holding
that the proposed amendment does not change the
nature of the suit and prejudice the plaintiff or take
away the admissions in the written statement and the
- 6 -
proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy between
the parties.
9.
Being aggrieved by the allowing of I.A.No.5
filed by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC, the plaintiffs have preferred the present writ
petition.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the
lis.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Manmohan P.N., would contend that the amendment
sought by adding paragraph No.5(a) is in respect of
Sy.No.124 which is not the subject matter and the
amendment sought by the defendants would change
the very nature of the suit. Learned counsel would
contend that the defendant has not stated in spite of
due diligence, the defendant could not have raised the
- 7 -
amendment before the commencement of trial as per
proviso under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and thus, the
allowing of the application by the trial Court is without
considering the settled proposition of law as envisaged
under Order VI Rule 17
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.