Amendments to pleadings before trial should be permitted if they clarify existing claims and do not cause prejudice to other parties.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the impugned order passed on I.A.No.6 dated 28/02/2019 in O.S.No.63/2012 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. Mudhol produced at Annexure-F, in the interest of justice and equity.

ii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Sri.Mahantesh R.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking to insert a clause “Up to Ghataprabha River on its West” in paragraph No.10(a) after the survey numbers. However, the trial Court erroneously rejected the same on the ground that no documents were placed in support of the amendment. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is filed at the earliest stage of the proceedings and it is in the clarificatory nature. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the proposed amendment is nothing but an abuse of process of law and filed with an intention to drag on the proceedings. Hence he seeks to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on the record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

5. The petitioners filed OS.No.63/2012 seeking the relief of decree for permanent injunction against the respondents and their agents from obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property in Sy.Nos.100/1 and 100/2 of Zunjarakoppa Village, Mudhol Taluk. In the said suit, the respondents filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Before commencement of the trial, the petitioners filed an application seeking to insert the words “Up to Ghataprabha River on its West” in paragraph No.10(a) after the survey numbers, i.e. in the prayer column of the suit schedule property. The trial Court rejected the same under the impugned order. In my considered view the proposed amendment would neither change the nature of the suit nor cause any prejudice to the other side and the same is filed at the pre-trial stage. Considering the same, the application deserves to be allowed. It is also noticed that the details now sought to be incorporated in the plaint is already a part of pleading at paragraph No.4 of the plaint.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there may be direction to dispose of the suit in a time bound manner. I am of the considered view that no mandamus can be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit in a time bound manner. However, the trial Court shall take note of the fact that the suit is of the year 2012 and consider the same for early disposal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed ii. The impugned order dated 28.02.2019 passed on IA.No.VI in OS.No.63/2012 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudhol is hereby set aside.

iii. Consequently, IA.No.VI filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is allowed.