1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.10046 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

REV. DR. BERNARD MORAS

PRESENTLY REV. DR. PETER MACHADO

ARCHBISHOP, SY. NO. 102/1C

MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHUR HOBLI

BENGALURU-560 037

REPRESENTED BY HIS

ATTORNEY REV. FR. DEVA DASS D

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS &PETITIONER

(BY SMT. RUPERT M. ROSARIO, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.

SRI. RAMACHANDRA REDDY

SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S

1(A). SRI. R. RAVIKUMAR

S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

1(B). SRI. R. SRINIVASAN

S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1216/9

4^TH CROSS, L.N.COLONY

YASHWANTHAPURA

BENGALURU-560 022

2

2.

SRI. KRISHNA REDDY

SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S

2(A). SRI. K. SATHYANARAYANA

S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

2(B). SRI. K. PRASAD

S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY

AGED A BOUT 48 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE

VARTHUR HOBLI

BANGALORE EAST TALUK

BANGALORE-560 037

3.

SMT. SHANTHAMMA

W/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

4.

SRI. JAYARAMA REDDY

S/O KOWRAPPA @ MUNISWAMY REDDY

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.3 & 4

R/AT MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE

VARTHUR HOBLI

BANGALORE EAST TALUK

BANGALORE-560 037

5.

SRI. NARAYANA REDDY

SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S

5(A). SMT. NEELAMMA

W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

5(B). SMT. KAVITHA

D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

5(C). SMT. NAGAVENI

D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

3

5(D). SMT. SABITHA

D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE

VARTHUR HOBLI

BANGALORE EAST TALUK

BANGALORE-560 037 ... RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

06.04.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,

CCH-13

BANGALORE,

IN

O.S.NO.6065/2011

AND

ALLOW

THE

APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF

CPC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Respondents are plaintiffs before the trial Court in

O.S.No.6065/2011. Petitioner-defendant has filed an application

under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on 16.12.2020 to amend the

written statement. As on the date of filing of application, the

stage of the suit was for defendants to lead evidence by filing

affidavit. Learned trial Judge, by the impugned order, has

dismissed the said application.

2. Smt.Rupert Rosaria, learned advocate for petitioner

submitted

that

the

advocate

who

is

presently

handling

4

petitioner's case has entered appearance after obtaining no

objection from the previous advocate on 04.12.2018. Only

thereafter, she came to know about the necessity to amend the

written statement and this aspect has not been considered by the

trial court. Accordingly, she prayed for allowing this petition.

3. The ground that the advocate has been changed does

not fall within the exception carved out in the proviso to Order 6

Rule 17 of CPC. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly

dismissed the application by recording in paragraph No.13 of the

order that defendant has not shown sufficient reasons to believe

that despite due diligence, he could not have raised the plea

before commencement of trial. Hence, no ground is made out

for interference in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Yn.