1
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009
BEFORE
THE HDNELE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. H:NcHIC;_ER1«'.__f ;_. A'
WRIT PETITION No. 12004 OF 2O07(GMgGP{i}_'::'~.V ' '-Ef: "
BETWEEN:
SR1 MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA
SENCE DECEASED BY LRS
1.
SMT FARIDA BANU
AGED 50 YEARS ; _
w/0 LATE MOHAMMED rmLEEM.D1,;A ~ "
SR} MOHAMMED SHAFEULL_£x_ A
AGE: SOYEARS _
s/0 LATE MOHAIVIMED KALEgEIViUILI_A' A
SRI.MOIiAMMEVf§~ .
S/O LATE MOE-ID EIELMULILA' -
AGED ABOU'1'. 28 ' ~
PEDDONEE Nos; 1firo_ "EESIDENTS OF
PAVAGADA *row"N,{:.wAR} '
PAVAEADA1A1,UK"*'«... .....
E V 'Ai\?D
""mM1>:UR=DIs'rR1C'£' PE3'I'I'£'IONERS
{BY _SRi« "EOE SR1 R B SADASIVAPPA. ADVOCATE}
_ _ 7S_M'1" MEHARUNNISA
" ~ f«..VsINAcVE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
« SR} .EAYAz AHMED
. s/To SM'I'.MEIiARUNNISA
V' AQED:43 YEARS,
"ta
SR1 NAYAZ AHMED
EX)
S/O MEHARUNNISA
A(}ED:4O YEARS.
C} SMT SHAMEEM TAZ
D/O SMT MEHARUNNISA
AGED:38 YEARS.
C1} SMT REHANA BEGUM
D/O SMT MEHARUNNISA -
AGED 6 YEARS. I
C} SR1 AMEER BEIG
H/O SMT MEHARUNNISA
AGED:63 YEARS.
{a} to {C} ARE R/ATMOSQUE ROAD: .
IDGA MOI-IALLATUMKUR
TUMKUR. -- 'I --.
2. SR] BVRAMAKRISHNA RAD" "
S/o.vENKA'rACI~IjAI;,AIAHI
AGED:53 YEARS;--._ .1
R/AT.PAVAGA::"L)A 'I'A1_;UK- " _ "
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ' ..
3. SR} APPANNA S/0 SR}-.SUBBA_NI~IA '
AGED:58 I '
R/AT. PAVAGADA TOWN "S; TALUK.
TUMKUR DESTRJCT. _ "
4. I' V. SR1 MUHAMMED SAl\/IIUE_.,..L'A
" ; S/Q LATE'-SI? I ABDUL RAJAK
'v._I\/IAVIICR, I2./AT.'H_ULIYUR, C.N.HALLI'1'ALUK.
T5JIvI.Ij:UI2 I_)E--STE2ICT1T_}~
e ' ' RESPONDENTS
I.I3Y'SIiI V NAGARAJA CUPIA FOR C /R3]
TIT{ES..WR§'F PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227'
_ 'Q'Ir-fI'"IIE; VCDAISTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
* .'=DjI',..2S.6;20o7 VIDE AI\INEx.A. PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE {JR.DN.)
AN'D.J_1y_IF7C, PAVAGADA, IN O.S.NO. 160 /99 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PS'I'I'1"I0N COMING ON FOR PRL. HG. IN E' GROUP.
TE~IE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitiort:er’s grievance is over the Court’s perm.i:s’siTon
granting further time to the respondent No.2 ~
out the amendment.
2. The respondent Nos.2 and
amendment of their written statemeiit. The Triai its v i’
order, dt.24.03.2006 ailowed the iirther,,.i§as they
did not amend the written the prescribed
time—frame, they fi1¢d.lt11¢ reasons for not
amending the and sought the
extension of’-.tim_e– the amendment. The Trial
Court by its granted one days time to
amend th,e_%:g:.iA}ritten by imposing a cost of RS500/~.
order, this petition is presented.
3;–FS1’i the learned Counsel for the petitioner
Tsgubrriits Order Vi Rule 18 of CPC the amendment
hecarried out within the time fixed in the order itself
’14 days from the date of the order. If no time is
–Vpreseribed in the order its
then the party shall not be
permitted to amend after the expiration of such 14 days. He
has also relied on the judgment of this Court in the cahsertof
SR1 NJIANUMANTI-IARAYA v. SMT.MARIYA§IvI~3.l{;’S._’__j: ‘ifs;
OTHERS, reported in 2008(3) KCCR 1465, ”
that if a party fails to early out the e
not entitled to the benefit of amend1n_ent.V”
4. The facts of the Vreportetilmcaseujand this ‘case are
entirely different. In the instant ca ithe:_:aft’idxa-grit for seeking
the extension of file ..statement was filed
and the Trial éijaiiting only one days
time and that too ha-cost of Rs.500/». The order
allowing the amendment is absoluteiy
su4.stainab}e_.
A in-View of the inconvenience suffered by the
V’vv..x15etitioner”««._ on’ ‘account of the inaction on the part of
and 3 in the matter, the cost imposed is
‘torhe raised from Rs.OO/– to Rs.2,500/–.
§
6. In the result, the impugned order allowing the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to carry out the amendment is
upheld and the cost is raised from Rs.500/e to
This petition is disposed of accordingly.
bvr