IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKAL
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd day' ofduly, V " "
BEFGRE: - « 4' H V' . _
THE Honrnm MR JUSTICE fix: 2*-§"r£~*i'L$'za:1_§5z=zJa. _
Writ Petition Ni} I0&2?"~.9f2O'08_'/t2A§<f;'Eti'_§""
BETWEEH
$R1RA\nKE13:RTH1 __
S/O LATE B.BACHAI§J_NA '
Ac;EDABomz§1YEARS _ _
mm' NO.;'64£3; _F1ANC§ANATHAP'L§RA.' =
MAc3A1:r1. ~ .
BAN<3;:xL0;?§E 7'9'~.. . PETETEONEF2
,%gy;gj,;s R;.¢%& s Rao, Adv]
1 SMT' PL SHARADA "
vi/o SR1; 1-:_.RAxzz--KU*MM: REDDY
_;_A("3E;D Agoxflfi 48 YEARS,
'£2/A51' ;44,v.H.B'.--€;;s. LAYOUT,
._ '3RD,'r~1A1};RAoa, I (312033,
" --VMA.,aA;A§;sHMIPuRA
Bf2vNC2.ALC3 £'-E;v"86.
2 sax JA'_Yf_tPAL REDDY
/c:y1,A'r=E NARAYANAPPA REDDY
AGEC: ABOUT :71 YEARS,
A. , _ ONE' OF' THE DIRECTORS OF
" V "ARUNOIBAYA EUILDERS
' ARNODAYA NEST, FLAT No.13 815 ,
KAGGADASAPURA MAIN ROAD
c.v.11;-'L, PRAYJAIGV TO QUASH THE
019939 DT. 8.'?'.2(3G8 PA$SED 11~.m.s,'rao:::344/2o0'5 BY THE TRIAL
COURT, ON I.A.NOS.'3 Ai'{D""¥O, '-JIDEE AFJX~,K"AND ETC.
THIS PETITION comm; fVF'c)'RV.'9--fé'E1};M1NARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE Cr:3--UR'F .';jHE:' ETQLLOWWG:
zzaééagjar 2095, on the fiie of
xxxx/£11 Additiami % cm; Judge, Bangalore, who
approacf1&;d_' "the '¢£.$uf't for the relief of injunction
_ basetfi' hr: the égégment for sale and who is aggieved by
(¥3vvI'efI}.,»(A\3IA'1'.§§'fi&":iSS'¢f3€i by the triai court on IA-IX and X, one
--.ar@ndment of the plairn: and the other for
'V i1np}:§éa d"i§1g' additional defefidant to the suit in temxs of
"' ~:fie'TL0;*désI' dated 8----7--2{308 passed by the tria} court, is
' this court, qziestiening the Iegaiity of this order.
3
2. Submission of Sri Sheshagri Rao and his colleague
appearing for the petitioner, is that the suit had been sfiled
for an order of injunction, but in View of the subfseqaent
development viz., the defendants -~ owners of
in question --- in spite of the agI'ee_!i1e.I_1t in '_'_the_ in
petitioner and notwithstanding
possession were taking steps and " it
has in fact executed a sale ifairouix-" 'a..thi:i<i party
and in such circumstarices' 'it for the
petitioner to mevecthe of the plaint
to includezjnot of mrformance of
the agreementbut' invalidation of the sale
deed eigejicuted in ._ of the third party, who was
iiipieadediiiéas an additional defendant; that
not opposed, the learned judge of
tiie trial has not bestowed his attention to the
4_ consideration for examining the applicafion of
vnattire; that the application has been rejected on
' reasons viz, the petitioner could file a fresh
%/
7
7. It is on exalnitxation of these objections
grounds in support of the applications, the _
of the trial court who had formulated the " a
1.
Whether it is just and gzroperfo cailow”-IA 1; A
IX filed by p1aint1jf”.2to”_Virnpie;;td’». ‘
opponent in IA No’Di«’-as Cl defendaVn’tl.ir:._;he
:2. Whether it.iS..j1Lst.”ant1a–.p!oper to cizzoiu 124
No X and tognennit p£’ai1’ttzjf to amend his
plaint, as prayed fojriri ” V
3.
answered 3 Rrlegative and accordingly
3. Ths« VV:l1ea;tned’.~’l’}§1id¥a§:\’ the trial court: has also
examined vai’ioi1s- aufhofiities relied upon by the learned
. ‘cm,V1h:~§el ?”i”or” fphe and ultimately concluded that
the Conduct of the plaintiff, oartioularly
as {RE defendant who had himself sought to get
by filing an application and which had been
by the court below was questioned by the very
piagnufr by filing WP No 2799 of 2007 and that Writ
8
petition having been allowed and the order for impleadirxg
the purc1_1_ase;’_a$ tI’liIj(l_4.<.1§i_'t'_:_}..'1ti&_'_é=l_1'1.t having N
the present application for K
amendment cannot be said to
fldes or diligence and it was L?
to raise the same question V
The learned judge of that
the suit initially Afiled permanent
injunction’ of action
arising from The learned
judge that recording of the
evidence and the arguments on the
part of mm: side had bee heard and it is in this
Zweituatiezm at thavtmetage the learned judge of the trial
it was not required to allow the
.applieatfie::i’te:’;e.mend the plaint as prayed for in IA~X and
d H H K epplieation was dismissed.
9
9. 1 find the 1*easonjng_s__gven bythe learned judge of
the trial court perfectly order and there is neither
any illegality In fact thefie can
reasons for _rejeoting the application ‘ ‘isjje:
necessary for this court to identify ” ” it
are not noticed by the learned judge .
justify the rejection of the appEiea_tiont _
10. It is not as though the has “ab.$011ite right
to seek for .the at any stage
irrespective of (1*()I:i(Vl”t”1VC*f;:V; 3 fact
situationiof sought for coming
at a belatedstatei if had been rejected by
the learned jtidge_V_V’oi’ ttie court, the rejection is in
of reasoning assigmd by the learned
I do not find any need or scope for
interfebeneei éieoordinfiy. this writ petition is dismissed.
Iudgé
Sd/*3