IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAAVN.:;4A’L;o§§2E”A« _
DATED THIS THE 12″‘ DAY OF NovEM_B’Eé, ” ‘
THE HON’BLE :vTR.3u.sT1cE’.RA\/T MAl _i”_ME\’TH ” V’
WRIT PETITION :\:o.i1 64V7 OF”‘2§)O7(C3M’–*{;’P€~)
BETWEEN: ‘ :
C.M.Puttaswamy,
S/o Eate Marulappa,
Aged about 60*’,-rears,
Proprietor of’ «_
M/S CMP _V
Mandé’pet,4 Tumk~s.j”:=T,. V __
Presentiy Tesictiwngat _ V’ ”
2″” Main Road,’ ._ ‘
C3a§T’ci’ETinagar-,A’
B.,eS:id e S avthya Té’ara.y.a’naswamy
., ,Té’mpIef, T’u~nj2<ur. …PETITIONER
I :"§«<,gRV..xRa:mesh, Advocate)
Nd._D: } A
T21, o.-Rfsrinath,
KS/o Radhakréshnashetty,
..'Aged: Major.
-32. D.R.Prasad
S/o Rad hakrishnashetty,
Aged:Major.
Both are residents of __
Aralepet, Tumknr. …RESPONDE:”NTS
(By Sri P.N.l\ianja Reddy 8: Sri S.C.Bhuti,
Advocates, for R1 & R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under.._Artic’:’leHs:233 éndfv227°’
of the Constitution of India praying tO_,QL:.as_h *tAh’e__i’rnVpi_;g’nAed’
order at Anne>E”‘iJ_)’ and JMFC, _.T.t.,:.rr”il<ur,i': ahdf
thereby allow the I.A.tV fEled._b"y..Vthe petitioner t:._n'd*e»r order'-
7 Rule 11(d) of CPC in 0.S.Nd':5.7'3/200"2.on-theféle of the
learned Principal Civil judge DP) and JMFC.,_Tu;Tikur.
This petition corning this day, the
Court made theAVfollowing;p}..V V –.
5..,Aggriev.e’d”~’by.”-the order dated 16–7–2007 vide
. An’inext}:’e¥De’_passeudmon I.A.IV in C).S.i\lo.671/2002 by the
Civii Iludge,(jlunEor Division), Tumkur, the
dAe–fend_antVlhals filed the present Petition.
2″…Sri i<.R,Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the
"'..pet'i'tEoner contends that the impugned order is erroneous
it " "and Eiabie to be set aside. He contends that the
application flied under Order 7 Rute 11(d) of CPC seeking
$9 4""
rejection of the plaint was wrongiy rejectedytby’ its-_._i_al~.
Court. He contends that in terms of
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the suit
the basis of measurement, with ref’e_re’nce No;.2u”of:’*.,
the scheduie property. Therefore, he that it is a
pure question of law failed to
consider. C it A
3. to”V”:ac:ce:,?Vt’V.’time?contention of the
learned –.avp~«p_ea_rinoVV’ for the petitioner.
So farlas the is concerned the Court would
have to take the”a’pp.léca.bility of the law to the proceedings
.be’fore”7it_ “S@_nce a pure question ofilaw as pleaded by
for the petitioner, it is wholly
uri-neces’:a’r~yd for the pleadings to be amended only in
,re,gard..–to the question of law. It is needless to mention
C’ –..V’th.at”the Court has a duty to take notice of the change of
flaw which has the applicabiiity to the suit. Hence it is
necessary to plead Eaw by way of an amendment. No legal
Q34”
right of the petitioner wouid be affected by
Even otherwise the petitioner is unabie to e.¥p_Ai_:a.i.ij’ to
delay of almost 5 years in filing tide vvftitted’.yst:ateo”§’eeii.fi;””__TV?
For the aforesaid reas–o’hs, the .W”rit: “being’-L’
devoid of merits, is rejected,.No–..§;osts_.
Rule discharged ‘M __
¥;e; i*JUDGE