V Since :23;-.'ce;a.see3 by. LR:
IN we HIGH coum' CJF KARNATAKA AT BANsaLéi§Ei%%%%%»k;%%%%
DATED THIS THE 25?" DAY OF JUNE 2008:
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MR.Jus*r1c£ A.N. vE'iw®%>ALA
Sri. Anjinappa,
Aged abaut 39 years,
S/0 Kadurappa, R,fQAvar:_';a!,:
Medigeshi Hob¥i,i_ '_ _ _ "
fviadhugiri Taiuk. ...PETITI€)i'~iER
gay" %;:;s.'B'.:§ s»auKK:ANreAP.=A, ADVOCATE)
AND: L _ _ %
Sri. 0ba!app%"'~. *
V" "fireéannéz T
' 5/ "L,af:é?:»_(}¥§)ai:::a;2.pa ,,
" ab c"u.t_ yea rs.
.2. E\3a§"ara_:i__u'
»: Eu" ..
S,/so Latejobalappa,
_ 'Aqe_d about 44 years.
'£§3'i'ifanna
S;/0 Late Obaiappa,
-«Aged about 32 years.
Eramma
W/'or Krishnappa,
Aged about 54 years.
1 ta 4 residents of Avargai,
Medigeshi Hobii,
Madhugiri Taiuk.
5. Lakshreamma,
Aged about 39 years, 1
W70 Keriyanna,
R/o Hosahaiii,
ivieeigeshi Hobii,
Madhugiri Taiuk.
6. Kariyamma,
Aged about 34 years,
W/0 Hanumantharayappa, V ,
R/o Hanumanthara;zanapai'y'3»,«
Madakarira Taiuk,~. ..
Ananthapur ei:.t;.eeAi=§j{.%._ ., Qeesmmoeuts
(BY sex. Hearse: R-1 to R-3)
This Writ i?etiti'e'r; --is"fiie'ci.ijnrjer-Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constituti'on'o_f In.die;"s«m'aysi"-that this Herfbie Ccvurt may
be pieased to cmash the i'mp.u§ned order dated 01.08.2006
passed by the Addi. Civii'--.3uL*i_ge*"(Jr.Dvn.) 8: JMFC, Madhugiri
on LA. No.3 in_O.S. £49.88/zcvoz, in so far as it relates to the
regeqtien v_"e.f __sprayer "efv'~----~~the petitioner ta amend the
pés-fagremi-#:l0"'e'f the.._writterr statement vide Armexure 'E'.
This'_\iVrit{fPetit.i.eri"coming on for Preiiminary Hearing in
fa" GroL:p,"this d'afy_t.i?'1e Court made the following:
9;B_2.§.E
":f_iie:>".;i~{"g:titior2er is the defendant in 9.5. No.88/2002
eeneiihgision the fiie ef the iearned Principe! Civil Judge
V'sfe'4j(3r._i§vn.) and }.M.F.C., Macihugiri. The respondents are the
ef the pieintiff in the suit. The suit is far the reiief of
\
fl
declaration, possession and mesrie profits, etc. The si.:’i’t.”i:–a;’§v..
been ccrztested by the defendant by filing ”
statement. Based on the pieadingt5;”‘ ii’i’as’T_A it
framed the issues and the piaintiff hes._ct§.ifr£i§ietéd,A%’.¥ais
evidence. At the stage whe;3:’~¢i-.2 ‘suit’ sjfor ” V
defendants evidence, tvh~e_.deferi’ds{ii”‘iiafis fiie’::i–.. No.3
under Grder 6 Ruie 1? permissidn to
amend paragraphfi and The
said appiicatimé of the plaintiff.
Considering–~I.,i§.”iii’e:.:ii§. and after hearing the
ieamed C50’t£?i’.§ei’ the Triai Court by its order
dated O1.Eié.2§.iGv6Viiihssisiiidwed LA. No.3 in part. The
..–vVa;f:1env¢i’i~’}3e:r;;t ta ;;ia’ra:…§….c:v’f the written statement has been
V”per§fii’ttedv._V'”:3titVAth.e proposed amendment in respect of para
19. t.i1’eu’.V–V’.j’;_vitf.’ittei2 statement has been negatived.
‘ Questid:1.i¥i’gV. tiie order, in S9 far as the nor:-granting of
‘;’ierifi’s’issiti” ts amend the written statement as praposed to
this writ petition has been filed.
I have heard the iearneci Ceunsei fer the parties and
perused the records.
K
3. Learned Counsei for the petitioner contended that,–.the ‘
Triai Court has acted with materiai irreguiarity in :~.nIi:o:}»;’;f<n_§…
LA. No.3 in part oniy. According to tho iaarncao'
LA. No.3 shouici have been aiiowed is fuii j<3.éfo.iid'éi¥It"v..A
ought to have been permitted to ameiud o.\_éér1 zinc
written statement. According-..:vL:'Lto_%» iaoAa:Vrn.ed.,VAti€?§;tii*§§3'éi;' 'Vino
prejudice would have occagionegi-"*to."_thé'~..§.,Rs of'the..~£3iaintiff
by aiiowing LA. No.3 in fui4i.'%'_._" it 3
4. Per .co’rntr§,” i
%eainea ‘forvthe respondents/LRS of
plaintiff cont:-$d’ed”r§1a£,’riiaeflopiication is beiated, that it
wiil amount to~..tai<ir;ig-__awa'y«..of materiai admissions, which is
:_.-":2o_t p§i:mE%$sib_ie and that, the Triai Court has
V'considergr.i..'t¥ié«vrfsa-tter in the correct perspective and having
foufid.' the relief sought in LA. No.3 cannot be
'T*~..__'gr§nteti, ..is."j.y§tified in aiiowing LA. No.3 in pan; only.
my view, the Triai Court has not committed any
h irregularity or apparent iiiegality in aiiowing LA.
'V'"».._ii.'io.3 in part oniy. It is not in dispute that, the triai of the
suit has commanced, in View of which the proviso to Ruie 1?
ix
In the re-suit, writ petition is hereby dismissed. VZ't.._is
made dear that, the 'ma! Court shail not be infiugrj_éé£i.:4'%bV3:f"vA.V
the uphoiding of this order, in that, whether tha M
para 10 of the written statement is a;:'é6'ani§siAon_;"net: has
:9 be éecided on the assessme$'E.__ 'Tthé'v_–1 ¢'rai*.
documentary evidence that may b§'p!ace fii oe:f:Vre.§:_"r;_ar§il'; HtV5i,i' the
parties. Since the suit ifwsx b&_e:1"'p§§i16ui':2g' frd'Ifi"'}.'.i}i}:2, the
Triéi Ccurt $5 directed to éi§fié_se bf .%;h5e $§1['§tv"e§§p§,*ditious£y.
REV," A. — ..