_ ANDS; 'V
: I :
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CERCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2593 DAY OF MARCH, 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J.GUN..}AL V f °" *
wan' PETITION Nos.60691 85 6Q692_f200§(GM;CPé)
A/W MISC.W.606 49/2009; .: _
BETWEEN:
SR1 BANGLI NAGAPPA
S/0 BANGLI LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 ¥EAR$,~~
occ: A<§RECuLTUR'1¢sT, "
R10 15% WAR1'),_~vSADASHIVANAGA
SIRUGUPPA, BVELLA:'R,YVDIS'T_R"1'C'I' 583 121.
v ...PE'I'I'I'IONER
(BY SR1. GQDE,NA'GA1?AJ,A»Dv.)
:'G;.X};EN_f§i§I'i§RI«SHNA RAG,
% S;fO"KAOTAYYA,_AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
"'R;'*0_ SAflASI~Ii'iAN'GAR, ADHONI ROAD, (APPLICANT iN
s1RtIGUPPA;BELLARY DSIT. 533 121. :vs:sc.w.60649/09)
~ _ ...R'ESPONDEN'I'
(BY S.M'1',LA'I'HA JADHAV, ABV FOR M/S RAVI VARMAKUMAR
- "-A/S, ADVS.)
'~.'I'HIS PETITION iS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 Abff.) 22'?
_ -Q'?-THE c0Nm*I'U'1*1oN or iNDIA PRAYENG TO QUASI-E THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS ET, 11/09/2808 on I.ANO.1O PASSED BY
__*1f§-I2 CIVIL J"U[)GE(JR.DN) AND JMFC SIRUGUPPA VIBE)
ANNEXURE-P' AND ORDER on ER. M111 EDATED 6/1/99 PASSED
BY' THE (EVIL JUDC:E{JR.DN) AND JMFC, SERUGUPPA IN
: 2 :
O.S.NO.8/O'? VIBE ANN~J ARE) DISMISS THE I.ANO.10 AND 11
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS N£ISC.W. Is FILED UNDER SECTION 151 QECPC
PRATIIING To VACATE THE INTERIM ORDER OB’I’AiuNE_Ds.ON
o3/02/2009 AND DISMISS THE ABOVE WRIT I=ET1TI€)Ns_”I.IrITII
EXEMPLARY cosrs EN THE INTEREST OF’ JL:~sTIQE__i’A.IqI;I
EQUITY. ~
THIS PETITION AND MISQW. coMINo;oN”I%os”‘oR’oEss”” V
THIS DAY,’1’HE coum’ MABE THE RQLLOIIIIINQI .; _ 4. =
oRDERgo
Even though these
with consent, it is tak’s{1_ up”d._ispossI1;
. –. ‘ is the petitioner. A suit is filed
by against the respondent
refiéf _____poImanent injuxxction. When the
‘ down for trial, an application is filed by
Iisié1j;déTIiit~1’espondent to amend the written
In fact two applications were filed one for
A if smsndment of the written statement and another
‘application for framing additional issue. Objections
W316 called for and filed by the plaixltifi’-petitioner. The
lsamed trial Judge having regard to the scope of the fl
l periiaissible.
application and also the proposed
allowed the application and also …tl1e foru V’ ‘ .
framing additional issue. ”
questioned in this writ
3. Mr. Gode appearing
for the ‘the applications
are filed aria} inasmuch as after
the was over. He
oommenced, the question of
” ‘.a1iio1idi’11ent to the pleadings is not
‘#2
Latha Jadhav, learned counsel
for the defendanbrespondent submits that
ii amendment is only to amplify What has been
” – stated in the Written statement inasmuch as they elaim
that they are in possession. She further su’0n:1it
:4:
pursuant to the said amendment, no
caused to the plaintifilpetitioner,
5. I have perused» T palssedw L’
by the learned trial Jutlge the epbficatiens.
6. amendment is
concemecfi azinendment is to the
effect of the suit property. It
is I}0 ‘€i(‘)’1.’tbt Ieggpficafions were filed by the
piai;1tif’f–‘petitione-r Wei} as the defendant~respondent
f0i5.:””:ix1jL1netion.x” “”‘i”””n’e learned trial Judge, it appears,
»~§hev};:pp1ieation of the p1aintifi’-petitiener and
‘ application of the defendanbrespondent.
x’I’The orders are confirmed in appeal. The fact that
V-.,V1:hei?applioation of the defendanbrespondent is rejected
t not necessarily preclude them from makting an
application for amendment of the written statement
seeking that they are in possession of the prom
:5:
The learned trial Judge has found that theidsaid
amendment is only to amplify what has
the pleadings. It is not a case where…
made in the written state11:Lent:.,.is;, ‘V
withdrawn tlms putting ease.oi”
jeopardy. Insofar as the dtzotitention Gode
Nagaraj, learned counsel’ forpetitioner that when
once trail has V,A’v-eornmeneed} ‘ianoendment is
imperniissilgjrg, that in the application
itseif, the has stated the reason
for not ii1o’er1_jora’f’rj.n’g the said averment. Indeed in the
‘ V’ striet sense, it is””not an application for amendment of
fine” but only to amplify what has been
staif.ed..~ in my View the proviso to Order Vi Rule
of v.t.iie Code of Civil Procedure is clearly attracted.
that is also the View of the Apex Court in the
of AJENDRAPRASADJI N. PANDE we ANOTHER
V SWAMI KESPZAVPRAKESHDASJI N. AND OTHERS
reported in {LR 2007 KAR 1237 wherein it is clearly
:6:
stated that if the grounds raised in applieatiodshow
that despite diligence matter could not be
could be a good ground for granting of
amendment. Hence, I am of 1:116
passed on the app_1ica1;ion’ for aiiaefxdmeidii ;
faulted.
‘7. Insofar as.-theji1ppiica;doIi:”i:;vA:No.11 seeking
to fram “‘e”aéd§:fio§f§:.i*iss1;e is eoncemed, it is to be noticed
that eddi’€ioIiza.lVVV to be framed since the
apgoiieatiofr for _[a–a111i’c-_:1§.{1if:1ent of written statement is
Irz1deed;”‘oihe learned trial judge has exercised
gaming both the applications.
2 V Having perused the impugaed orders, I am
A ‘dd’ the View that they do not call for interference.
9. No merit. Rejecsed. The learned trail judge
shali expedite the trial of the suit.
In Vi6W of rejection, moi *:pVétj.t4_*._ig_)x1sV, ‘
Misc.W.NO.60649/ 2009 filed by
vacating stay does not ” for ‘<2o1is_:ideraition."
Disposed of.
* M g JUDGE