Ganapati Satu Naik vs Mohan Subray Gaonkar on 5 December, 2008

W? 13246 oi'.'20{)6

IN THE HIGH coum' 01? KARNATAf'_f§-'.'  
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARw_A§ j ' :7: F. 
DATED THIS THE sm DAY ; 
9EF_9RE 7.   " " V'  V'

THE HON'BLE MR;;£}'s*r1cE  H 

 

WRTI' PE'rrr1v§N~ .mg_.,g  [GM-égg"
BETWEEN:   'T 1 ' 

Ganapati       " 
Agedabout32l'yéezr3, V ~    X

000: "

R/oBbaviké'1*i__A    

Taluk:_Ankoia.j.,   _ -- ...Petifioncr

(By  'figfé-c Hcgdgé'  Advocate)

'V    H? Siiisray Gaonkar,

' A Compound,

 61 years, Retire Tmchcr,

  we Bhavikeri, Taiulc: Ankoh.

  Q  Madcvi Kom Vcnkatraman Nayak,

Aged 55 years, 



WP 15246 M2006

4. Vinayak Vcnlmtxi Nayak,
aged 28 years, '

5. Pravocn, D/o Vcnkatraman Nayak;  . 
aged 31 years,   3 A

6. Vidya, D/o Venkairaman Kayak,  A_ 
aged 31 years, ' .  "

7. Poomjma, D/o ven1;_a.uama;;__fijay_aaf:3§.1awi1 g: M  " 

0RpER W
The plaintiffhas filed    ;ngmg' the
order-Annc.xurc~F  bf "  the
application for  crf     

 '"§'hcV   the suit fin' partition and
separate   sax!' suit, he fihd an ap9l%' ' n

for.   prayer column to inchxdc the prayer

  ppssessiaon. The said application is flied at the

 sfé§S.¢1'5f  Therefore, the T1131' Court held, in v1ew'

of {he agggenéui pmvisions under Order 6 Rule 17 introduced

   mike  2002 suxzh an application was not mam' 11-zunab' Ia,

'%  also held that if the appzicamon is allowed it would

  ....:;2sult in the change of the nature of the suit. Aggrievcd by

the said order, the present writ petition is filed. L12



WP IW46 of 2006

3. The suit is of the yam' H1 that  
amendment of the Civil Pxooeduxt    'V 
Amendment Act 2002 makes it   
provisions are prospective  it    ;
plaadings fixed prior to the   Court
bciow was not     {Far

amandmcnt.

4.  mg;   mcndzncnt will
changg    it is also without any
substéztlcct. «A   ".i,t§'~£3_'I1a*: -t for partition and separate
possess:i'O£1L.4'The'  wants the defendants 3 to 7
who;.k.*..-we mfcnégst fiom the defendants 1 & 2 who

 V'  . ¢A1va"n:g;'  tiihafirz:  demolish the construction and hand

 oaagcgaf  The main relief is also ibr paxfition and

 tc.  The specfl relief is sought for agam' st

'Qthc défgfidants who are not mgambers of the jo-mt family. In

A ":f"~giacw, the reasoning of the Trial Court that mcndmcnt

   change thfi nature of thc suit has no substance. The

'4 impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, I pass the

following: 



'WP 15246of'2006

ORDER

(a) the writ petition is

(b) the impugned

quashed; and

(C) the applicatien flthe
plaint is piaifififi’ permitted to
amend the to the
‘dc&néfi@m t¢ fig any a4dfiixma~wfinmn
if th¢x%c3:°°s¢%t*> $05″

sal-

   -    Judge