1.
I ramu , Adv.)
1.
N I
. Jayaramu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6"' DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010§:'f*ff~.V_
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.\:EN.:J4Go;éALAIaeowog
WRIT PETITION No.3o910:/20150
BETWEEN:
Smt.ChikkathayamrI__1a,
Aged about 61 years,"=~._ _
W/o. late Moile Gowd'a".g '-
Aged about éftyearéz, 2: A '
S/o. fate«-F/E'o§ie](§owd.a,._A '
Working in _Defeni:e Of ' ,
Presvently"'ca"rrie;,to_ i3an.g'a£ore._H_
on $'1oEiday..f~_, _
Both are reside-nits ' '
H on Da ya ka naha By I vi !.l_a"g e ;'
Maiur Hobii, "_ I'
Ch.annap'afn'aTa--tukv,
Ramanagaram 'District.
I " ~ """ ...PETITIONERS
OS~mt;..V'Savr'ojamma,
Aged about 64 years,
I. .a\/'V/o;"'late Channappa.
. "KUmara,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o. Eate Channappa.
Both are residents of
Honnayakanahaliy village,
Malur Hobli,
Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagaram District.
And also residing at
Hunuganahalli village,
Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
REsPoi\i.D"L{i\iTs"._
This writ petition is filed'-vandber articles: $227 it
of the Constitution of India, praying to "quash the order
dated 24.5.2010 passed by'""'i.'he- L'e.arned""Civii Judge
(3r.Dn.), Channapatna O.'S.Pio..1';1_1,/2004 rejecting the
I.A.S filed under Order Ru.le;'7__goff'»CPC produced at
Annexure - E and quash_the-.order",a'rid5'allow the writ
petition. , I - ' '
Th'isVi'p'et.i{ti_on«:i;orni'rig"on for"'piVre|iminary hearing in 'B'
group tvhisday,"the.ACourt_made the following]:-
i M igirinaa
V'._§&'O.S.i\io.1"1~3i_/:2'OO¢i on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.
V.ADiv_n.,)_V.i'ACiha:nii.apatna, has been filed by the respondents
‘§;’et’i’tioners seeking decree of partition and
sepa’~rate:’pvo’ssession claiming half share in the piaint
4″””.”‘gschegdulveiiproperties. The petitioners/defendants, have
fi.|e’d”izvritten statement. Petitioners filed an application to
“permit the amendment of the written statement i.e., to
incorporate the proposed plea. The piaintiffs objected for
grant of relief in the application. The triai court,j”fin’tiip’rigu
the application to be devoid of merit, has
same on 24.05.2010. Aggrieved.,~ii~~th_e’
filed this writ petition.
2. Sri H.C.Shivaramu,._,,:”‘i”e.arned .co’uns’e|”avppeajring 0′
for the petitioners, conztended’*V:t’lj*at’,’~-..,the’ Alappiicaition for
amendment has not the correct
perspective and[tli..e irrational and
illegal, is :1″
-_ though served, have
remai ned re p reserli 4′
I h’a’ve.,p_e_ri,:sed the writ petition papers.
,,’¥h:e*~trial court has dismissed the application on
the””‘ioroiin:d’I__that, it is belated and further, there is
‘V_commeni::_ement of trial, in view of which, the proviso
A Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC is attracted. It has further
it
_//’
u D
observed that, plaintiffs will not get opportunity tomeet
the proposed contention of the defendants.
6. The principles which guide the
discretion in allowing the amendment”areé_ that,
of proceedings should be avoided,”t_he-_lVa’men;;..;fi’ent
do not totally alter the charaCter~.,of axni-.actio,n, orjdlefence it
should be granted, whi’ie__ta3<irig' seeé'that.»v'§njustice
and prejudice of an not inflicted
upon the opposite' partge offllule 17 of Order
6 CPC makes of pleading can be
Permitteda'tVal..:afn?y. 'thé'.."i5t'o'ceedi n9- However, the
proviso"rmposes;l:o.ej.ai;ainbrelstrihctions. If it is established
that,V_inspite~ of .du–.e i'clili'g'ence the party could not have
"'«._rais'e'd~ thew,,.matte'r'~before the commencement of trial,
i4i'pori-..the circumstances, the court can permit
the,_.'amendrlni.eii:t.
The suit is one for partition and separate
“:l:”poss’e_ssion. The petitioners by seeking amendment of the
written statement have only proposed to include an item of
/’
/a
property, which they claim is also liable for partitio_r_z_.__ It
has been averred that, they were unaware
particulars till date of filing of the
proposed amendment does not~»e.l.toge.ther”-a._al,te’i’.’_’_:the._,
defence. Whether the property pro’pos’ed”‘lto
the written statement, c|airn_i:n’gV_ into be_3″..,3’oi.r1t–~~family’Vi’
property is liable for division, Vi,s—-a:’inatter, vl:h’ich, isfrequired
to be tried and decided” ._ * –
8. The Vamend’m_e’n.tV p_roj,po–sed’«..]c;an be granted,
since multiplis;ity”j,;1,o’f prioceeding’s::.ca”nbe avoided and the
real ccyvntroyerrsy btétwee;a:’_’the .pa”rties could be decided in
the very=su’it. H,ow:fjev_e’r’,._:t’o«.see that no injustice is caused
to the .,plaintiffs on’.’*ac’coiJ’nt of commencement of trial, the
.,aypiaiatirrss.cout,|,ci be ‘permitted to file a further pleading under
,___R”u_la’e’9 CPC to the proposed amendment and an
issued ‘raised with regard to the amended plea,
V’-».casting.[burden of proof on the defendants to prove,
“‘*V’.wh,etiher the property incorporated in the written statement
/.
I
is liable for partition and aiiotment of shares. The..___triai
court being otherwise, is irrationai.
in the result, the writ petition stands aiioyyed, ”
impugned order stands quashed.
Application dated 31.0Ei’.2_QO8 f’i!e’d’ in me;tiit san¢s f
allowed.
The petitioners pe-r:mi;tted~–..totingsorpoiraite in the
written statement, thei..i,3ro.P:o¢.e.aaipieayhlVgiiiegfohre 03.01.2011
by paying co_st_: in the trial cou rt.
weeks from the date the
amendnwlent a copy of the amended
written’ statenient: is furnished, the plaintiffs are at liberty
is directed to raise an issue with
regard “the amended piea in the written statement,
if”4″;–,:c’asti_ngVVthe burden of proof on the defendants and reserve
pi” _
the right to the plaintiffs to Eead rebuttai evidence,_.._with
regard to the additionai issue.
The suit being one for partition
possession, the triai court is directedwtto”dispose
as eariy as practicable and atany eVerS’t,_Aiwithinia’ *peri’oo”o:f”~.
six months from the date theasuit is by
raising the aclditionai issue as.vro’t$se.%yeVEir~.supra;”‘