1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Writ Petition No.114698/2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

Sri. Jyothi Chandrashekhar S/o.

Somashekharappa

Since deceased by his L.Rs.

1.

Smt. J. Pushpavati W/o.

Late Jyothi Chandrashekhar,

Age 58 years, Occ: housewife.

2.

Sri. J. Siddalingeshwara S/o.

Late Jyothi Chandrashekhar,

Age 38 years, Occ: Commission Agent.

3.

Smt. Sharada @ Jyothi W/o. Rajashekar,

Age 36 years, Occ: Housewife.

4.

Sri. J. Somashekar S/o.

Late Jyothi Chandrashekhar,

Age 34 years, Occ: Commission Agent.

5.

Sri. J. Manjunath S/o.

Late Jyothi Chandrashekhar,

Age 32 years, Occ: Commission Agent.

6.

Smt. Sunanda W/o. Channabasava,

2

Age 30 years, Occ: Housewife.

All are R/o. Acharnarasapur village,

Tq. Gangavathi, Dist. Koppal.

...Petitioners

(Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, Advocate)

AND

Sri. Jyothi Parameshwarappa S/o. Somashekarappa,

Age 59 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o. Gangavathi, Dist. Koppal – 583227

…Respondent

(By Sri. S.S.Yaligar & Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Advocates)

- - - - - - - - - - -

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India praying to issue writ, order or direction in

the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.07.2019

passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gangavathi in

O.S.no.96/2015 thereby rejecting the I.A.No.7 by the petitioners

Annexure-F, etc.,

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in B

group this day, the court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated

25.07.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC

3

Court, Gangavathi in O.S.No.96/2015, whereby I.A.No.7 filed by

the plaintiffs came to be rejected.

2.

The plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.96/2015 for

declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the

present respondents/legal representatives of the plaintiff filed

I.A.Nos.3, 5 & 6 to condone the delay in bringing the legal

representatives, to set aside the abatement and to bring the

legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs. The said

applications came to be allowed.

3.

The petitioners having not carried out amendment to

the cause title within the stipulated time, filed I.A.No.7 for

permission to carry out amendment to the cause title. The trial

Court dismissed the said application. Hence, this writ petition.

4.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that,

the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the

application on the ground of delay and merely for infraction of

procedure and as such the substantive rights of the plaintiffs

cannot be allowed to be defeated. He further submits that,

4

merely on the ground of technicalities, justice should not be

thwarted at the threshold. Learned counsel places reliance on

the decision passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Ram

Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply,

reported in AIR 1967 SC 1267.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

justifies the order passed by the trial Court and prays for

dismissal of the writ petition.

6.

The petitioners filed application to bring them on

record as legal representatives of the plaintiff and the same was

allowed

by

the

trial

Court.

However,

the

legal

representatives/plaintiffs did not carryout amendment to the

cause title within stipulated period of 14 days as required under

Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Hence, they filed I.A.No.7 seeking

permission for extension of time to carry out amendment to the

cause title of the plaint.

7.

However, the said application was rejected on the

ground that the same is filed after nearly seven months and also

5

not assigned reason as to