The captioned writ petition is filed by defendant

No.4, who is questioning the order dated 16.04.2022

passed by the learned LXVI Additional Senior City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1595/2011

on I.A.No.30 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with

Section 151 of CPC as per Annexure-F seeking

amendment of written statement. The said application

was rejected by the learned Trial Judge which is under

challenge at the instance of defendant No.4.

2.

Respondent No.4 and 5 have sought for relief of

declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are absolute

owners

of

the

suit

schedule

properties

and

consequently,

direct

the

defendants

to

deliver

possession of the suit schedule properties. The

respondents/plaintiffs have also sought relief of

declaration questioning the General Power of Attorney

dated 12.05.2008 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3

4

and subsequent sale deed dated 08.11.2020 by

defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is

also sought to be questioned.

3.

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, to substantiate their

claim, have let in ocular and documentary evidence.

The present petitioner/vendor has also let in ocular

and documentary evidence. Pending suit, it appears,

P.W.2 who is questioned by plaintiff has alienated the

suit

schedule

property

in

favour

of

one

K.Basavegowda. After the death of K.Basavegowda,

his wife is asserting right over the suit schedule

property.

Defendant

No.2

filed

an

impleading

application, which was allowed by the learned Trial

Judge. The said order on impeading application was

questioned by plaintiffs in W.P.No.5037/2019. The Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order

passed by the learned Trial Judge on impeading

application and consequently, the alleged purchaser's

5

wife was not permitted to come on record as

defendant No.5.

4.

The

present

application

which

is

filed

in

I.A.No.13 by defendant No.4 is on the ground that

P.W.2, in his cross-examination on behalf of plaintiff,

has not at all disclosed about his alienation. Therefore,

the present petitioner who is arrayed as D.W.4 intends

to incorporate the transactions entered into by P.W.2

as a General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff and

also wants to incorporate pleadings relating to the

transactions

done

by

P.W.2

in

favour of one

K.Basavegowda in respect of the suit schedule

property. The said application was strongly resisted by

plaintiffs by filing detailed objections. The learned Trial

Judge has rejected the application filed by the present

petitioner seeking amendment of written statement.

The said order is under challenge.

6

5.

Heard

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner. Perused the order under challenge. I have

also

given

my

anxious

consideration

to

the

observations made by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in W.P.5037/2019.

6.

The Co-ordinate Bench while allowing the writ

petition in W.P.5037/2019 filed by plaintiff on an

impleading application has taken judicial note of the

fact that the matter is set in for final arguments.

What emerges from the records is that the present

petitioner intends to incorporate additional pleadings

relating to transaction entered into by P.W.2 as a

General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff in respect

of the suit schedule property. Petitioner alleges that

pending consideration of the suit, the plaintiff through

General Power of Attorney holder has alienated the

suit schedule property under registered sale deed

dated 19.04.2014.

7

[

7.

It is more than trite that the pendente lite

purchaser is not at all necessary party to the suit. The

actual controversy between the parties is as to

whether plaintiff has executed a General Power of

Attorney in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

Therefore, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to

establish that he never authorized defendant Nos.1 to

3 under General Power of Attorney dated 12.05.2008

and therefore, alienations are barred in law and not

binding on plaintiff. Equally, defendant Nos.1 to 3 who

are vendors of present petitioner