Obamma W/O Thipperudrappa vs A Obaiah S/O Anche Obaiah on 6 July, 2009

IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT  " 

DATED THIS THE em DAY 09 JULY %2<}C9%   31} .
BEFORE     " h

THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE  AuII:'I'v..}.GtJ.}£V7s.I'AL" %  %%

WRIT PETITION NO.187$?/2OQ9{Gfv§'#C'I%é)

W/0-Tlfipperfiiimppei;   
Aged      

2.    
S/0-AI1Ch¢'0'x3aia%1,  V ;
Aged amt 6? A356-9%   _'

W / g).'Sambamf1a', '

 ~.    

 ._S7f.__<3.AI3é11e <3ba"1'ah,
Aged abéairt {'34 years,

 petitioner No.1 to 4 is
*R:=:sidi'r"1g at Hirehally viilage,

"  Hobli, Challakare

V*:'a1uk m 577 522,

  V _?3}:1itI'adL1rga Dismct.

V' '~ .  Rajanna,

S / o.Anche Obaiah,
Aged about 52 years,



Asst. Director ofAgr1(:uIture,
Office of the Joint Director

of Agriculture, Gulbarga.  u

(By Sri.C.K.Raghavendra, Adv.)

AND :

1. A. Obaiah,
S/o.An(:he Obaiah,
Aged about 65 years,  ' _
Retired Ag'icu1tura1,0flice.r," .  "_

V 2. Rathnamma,
W/o.Obaiah,__   _ 
Aged about .53 yeaxgfs, : 

Both       

R/o.}Ii1veha1Iy'}§zi3}ga1gc~;.  ., 

Nowr€:s1cij}i1g at};  

VaIiniki'Nag a.if;.V' '~   ~ %

Chaliakere TQw:1~e5';??T"'52~2

Chitr~ad1,_1rga Qisizfict,  ...RESPONIDEN'1'S

  Efhis u%I'*it__ petition is filed under Arudes 226 and

 522? 0f.."€30n;#stitution of India with a prayer ta quash

this"-Vorder"."Ljdé:i:ed 9.6.2009 dismissing the applicatian
i"1Ieci__ byv~"t!1V-sir petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the

 Code .. (rift Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the

" '"wIfittenv...Statcmcnt in <I).S.No.1{)6/2008 passed by the

'  of Civii Judge (Jr.I)I1.) at Molakalmuru vide
" . Armtéxuze 'E'.

This writ petition coming on for preliminary

'4 'hearing, this day, the Court: made the fcilowing:



ORDER

This petition is by the defendants. The defendant
No.5 — petitioner No.5 made an applicatien
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil .
amendment of the written s%:ateme11t,__The_c ” =
proposes to amend the written
paragraphs 4 (a) to 4{m) *
statement. As has been ebsehtert the ” Trial
J ucige, a pemsa} of diseleses

that the 5th defeedant eh-ceijhter claim.

fact that it is in the nature

of a eotlxltef the View that the question of

the ‘eppfieation for amendment of the

weuld not arise. It is no doubt true

that4:’theV.e:1éEeI’;dment is to be construed liberally. But

‘-heweveztjiit is not a. case where what has been stateé in

VA texitten statement is amplified. Indeed it is to be

.,:1r3tieed that What ever pleading is required to be stated

V’ by way of ampfifieatioxz is there in the statement.

fix

I am of the View that the amendment is not permisfsible.

Thare is no merit in this petition.

Petition stands rqected

SP3