tsp"
W? 34344/ 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY or NOVEMBER..2.¢_:T.C$"_~"
BEFORE ' A 'V' A A
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE'B.«SV.PA'l?IiM' V_
W.P.No.34344/2009'A:{£}B:}i'.C?C)§'b'v'.L'T . «. "
BETWEEN: A A
Sri Thimmegowda,
S / 0 late Ramaiah,
Aged about 51 years, :
Neralaghatta Village, _ '
Hanabe Post, Kasaba'-H01:-_1i, V
Doddaba11apura3__Tal}i,1i<, . 1 A
PETITIONER
{By Sri
AND:
1.
Sri Muaiyappa;
S/0 late HsaTieL1_maiah’,.. ” ,
Aged. about years,
Srifatalappa, H “”” ”
. S/,0 i3._teuLakS1f1maiah,
years,
3.
S /6* late Lakshmaiah,
Aged ‘about 56 years,
A’
S 70′ late Lakshmaiah.
Aged about 49 years,
_ Sri Sonnappa,
S / 0 iate Krishnappa,
Aged about 54 years,
WP 34344/2009
6. Smtfianumakka,
W/o late Channegowda,
Aged about 64 years,
All are residing at
Addiganahalli Village,
Hessarghatta Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. .;..§1’RESt*ctN1ir:i$i”rS
(By Sri Ravikumar, Adv. for R1. 3 c’2z__5,
Smt.Amrutha Sindhu, Adv. for ”
Sri P.I~I.Virupakshaiah, Adv. for R6′; ‘ _
R3 8: 4 – served)
This Writ Petition is filed unrier Articles’ 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India pray1jrVigV.VVto__ quashv Vthe-. -impugned order
dated 11.8.2009 épassedfabya the .4II’«..:Ac_ldl’.C’::;’i’il Judge [Sr.Dn.},
Bangalore Rural ‘Dis_t1ict, Bangalore,’ i11’O-.S’.No.1910/2005 vide
Anne-xure~E andletcl-.._.. ” A A” ‘ »
This at on VflPrelirnina1y Hearing– ‘B’
Group this day, vthe; ~C_ourt’rr_iad_e the following:
V K! ԤREJER
this ‘petitiotl, petitioner is challenging the order
tby: thecozirt below rejecting the request for amendment
oflrhe ‘piainlt.u.”_”–..
V -2. lay ‘the”iaroposed amendment, the plaintiffs sought to
at at ‘ -lllincozporate certain pleadings and also an additional relief in the
_l_ipra_vler ‘column to the effect that the sale deed executed by one
a –:l.4:C’hennappa in favour of Anjinappa on 14.10.1959 and also the
sgfz/deed executed by Anjinappa in favour of Krishnappa on
WP 34344/2009
10.07.1967 and as also thg subsequent sale made by
Krishnappa in favour of Muniyappa in the year 1967, etc., be
declared as null and Void and not binding on the plaintiff. This
application was filed in the month of July 2008 while is
of the year 2005.
3. The plaintiff had contended in the application’–f.:tl1at ..
came to know about the registeredIgsale_,,’deed–s
written statement was filed by the defendants
sale deeds. He further contendedi’o’t:hat_if were
to be allowed, it will not ‘changed. of the suit or the
cause ofa_actio_n’ £3hé1’3:fOffi, for effective adjudication of the
lis, the arnendment._wais’required to be allowed.
f’*amenldr11ent__Hwas resisted by the defendants. The
_below_ dismissed the application holding that the
in the plaint that he was the owner of the
9 property the registered Will dated 12.01.1959 executed
Cri:3_Cl’lé1I1I1igappa S/o Rangappa. Defendant No.5 had filed
.l_iwrivt.ten’Astatement on 13.09.2006 two years prior to the filing of
-«l..:th’e”fpresent application seeking amendment of the plaint and
the court had framed issues on 19.09.2007 and therefore, at
A/’
WP 34344/ 2009
such a belated stage the amendment sought for could.–not be
granted .
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for_..t.he:”VVparties in
perused the pleadings and the :qf(;l>€’l\’Q..%I.:1′(i.VV
good ground to interfere with tghe_florder’- passed
the writ if jurisdiction. No illegali’t3t-I error of
jurisdiction is made out the court below.
The court below has taken factors while
rejecting the incorporate the relief
challenging ” Way back in the years
1959. l9?_f37 lii.+68. th.e’~«a_1nendment were to be allowed at
such belated stage .itl’\i..iiil1fp’1:¢jud’icially affect the interests of the
purchasers. no diligence or bonafides on the part of
lithe’ plaintiff in seeliingllthe amendment. Hence, this writ
peutitigon “d’ev_oi.d of merits is dismissed.
Sdf…
§UD€§5§