WP No.65908 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD QATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER.__"2:()Q'§'Vé~ ~ BEFORE %% " E%:L TI-IE HON'BLE DR.JI.¥STICE Kg;I§jfiA1:%Tet;Av.étTsALA_T_ WRIT PETITION Ne.6>5908/'2--.009 rGM'--scPC1" BETWEEN: % V' % a H W /0 Vakkal Haji Attauf 'Ra.hc_::i:a;1, . Age: 30 years, V A " . V ' ' Occ: H0usehold,:w.0rk,;' 12/ 0 3rd cross; v'i:1t2a3*'aA:Nat3a§, Angel, V .. PETITIONER (By srj; M " AND: Shriifi/etkizai I'Ix'c;:l._ji"J%3Lfg:_a.1.v1r Raheman, V. "*-Agé':" 31?fy'ear$, Occ: Business, /"ct T«~.3;'.AShv.rarya Apartments, A 2-.R(-:-st Hausé mats, Eanga1er'e--.l'(j;_ ...RESPONDENT
This writ petition is fiied under Articles 226 86 227
Constitution of India praying to quash the order
_ passed by the Trial Court in O.S.N0.6/2008 on I.A.N0.II
Wéetted 08.10.2009 passed by the Famiiy Court at
WP No.65908 Of 2009
Belgaum vide Annexure-E and allow the application for
amendment filed by the petitioner to meet the_en’dus~..of
justice.
This writ petition coming” on £014″ p.relilrninar*y it ”
hearing this day, the CgufttB1%dfithe..folvlovvingg~._ it
The petitioner, who is plaintiff ir:”o{_lsi.Nef;6/2008
on the file of Family is before this
Court praying forquashing”th*e_’o_rder Aerated 08.10.2009
passeclllofi VI Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil ‘ in the above said suit at
Annexureefill =
V counsel for the petitioner submits that
be’fore c0.m:me;ncement of the trial, the plaintiff having
*._notice’d_ that certain facts are not mentioned in the
filed an application seeking permission to amend
plaint. The application was opposed by the
L
WP No.65908 of 2009
respondent. After hearing the arguments, the ff_’a__mi1y
Court erred in rejecting the same. He further
the proposed amendment with regard to
and cruelty by the responde”nt/deferidanf’TI,
incorporated, the plaintiff
loss and injury.
3. Perused theta’ The present
petitioner hasfiied pp against the
respondent4’hi’i«sVEda1i’d.ii in the impugned
order that framed and trial has
commenced,’ has not shown any
circumstarmes’ of ‘such a”nature to permit her to amend
as priop’*’—-se’d. In View of the amended proviso
to 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
triaJ_riCourt held that there is no prima facie case
ifirnade for allowing the amendment application. The
Court, on appreciation of the material placed on
C Wreicord, came to the conclusion that there is no merit in
WP No.65908 of 2009
the amendment application and rejected I.A.No.1I._.~I__ see
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. T ‘V
In the result, the Writ petition fails a.-nd» “seirrze W
hereby dismissed.
3w3%?
Kms*