1 W.P,l132'?J{}9
INTTEEHKH{COURT(H?KARNATAKA,BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 0339 DAY OF JUNE 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'£'ICE H.N,NAc;AMo:~LA;i~I -T '
WRIT PETITION NO: 1 1327/:«2oo9 %£.Qng»cPC:§ Afi
BEPWEEN: -
C) ARASAPPAQ DCJ*DD"A ARASA?PA
S/O LATE. {;';.HINi$EAP}?A--,
AGED 65%YE#:aR_%sk%.% .
R/(I). "No.29, .543 "{3RQSS' "
BAPUJiNA{}AR-- 1\iEY:T~.0"F'}J ROAD
BANGALORE -%-- V5-6G*.Q2{":
: V L. .. ' PETYFIONER
: 2(Bé §' K iiiaiimg Ktf1$}iAI~2, A;¥L)V.,)
1' NA¢}AB;A:~§UMA1AH S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
.. .A AGE :68 YEARS,
pee: AGRICULTURE
R-,'--{). NO.1(}2, KENCHENAHALLI
iRAJARAJE'SHWARI NAGAR, KENGERI HOBLZ
%% A VBANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE ---- 560 039.
€L.\',:\_.,»~._
2 W.P.1i32'?1'I}9
C NARASAPPA @ CHIKKARASAPFA
SfO. LATE' C}-IINNAPPA
AGE: 62 YEARS, " .
OCC: AGRICULTURA, R/O. NO;:.10i3',T ~
KENCHENAHALLI, RAJARAJESPEWAJRI NAGFLR ' pk %%
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALQRE sc»«tJ'1=I:{'I:2:LLi;:1x:
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE» 560 '$39 '
SMTHVRAMAMANI"V~._ ,
Wm. B V SHIVARUDi"€A;L£XI+i ; A V
AGE: 55 YEARS, ;
030: HOUSEi;1QLD;' " é _ ~
R/O. NEAR%_'KER'EBAGijL'U, IwA'RD------~
DODDABALL.AE'*LT:R "1'«QWi'§.,V EDLCIRQSS
DODDABALLAFUR TALVISEK " "
BANf3»AL(§ Rf:DI$'I'Ri.C"f,_f56_'1 203.
S P MANJLINATPLK' ,' "
S/O 1,ATE-..?UrrABAsAP?A
Mmwm¥mm& %
OfCC:;§AG:RICUL
%' V '.IlE'l{-:J}#'>.'I'§j.'(::4""=' 212, 2ND FLOOR,
*-*cR3ScEN$R0AD
% myisassy QENTRE,
nANGAL0;E:E -----E36(} 00 1.
RESPONDENTS
WP mag UNDER ARTICLES 225 & 227 0?
{ZONSTYFUTIQN ON INBIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
"£'3§:I}E}__T:ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CITY
AND SESSEONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, ON
'=. "L"%..NO.5, IN ()S.NC}.2526/()0 D'I'.6.3.09, THE CERTIFIED
COPY OF WHKIH IS FILED AT ANN--J, THEREBY
ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETFFIONER
(H/7L¥Vr\.
3 WP. I 13271139
AND PERMITTING THE PETITION TO AMEND THE PLEIINT
AS SOUGHT FOR IN 1A.NO.5.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CQURTf_IMADE 'A
THE F'OLLOWiNG:-
ORDER
Petitioner filed ().S.NO.f£’e5TfZ€~/2OOi)_V_ the V
respondents for pa1’£itioI1′::a;1d e”pOsseeeidI1 of his
sham in the piainig schedfgle defendants
entered ‘Court and filed written
siatement. _’1’heI’ea.fiAe1*.T» fI’3.e”«13etitj0ner filed a rejoinder
denyiI1g:t}1eLAa11eugai§OIfi’s in the Written statement. The
‘pefifiefier not satisfied with the avemxents made in
unéer Order 6 Rule 17 CPO to
“‘V”aII1;.eI1d”‘~t1:e.__”pi:§;i:*§t. Under the impugned order, the mm
H §{i.sm’iseed I.A.NO.5. Hence this writ petition.
‘ E:2. The proposed amendment is in “the nature of
reply to the allegatiens made in the written statement.
Admittedly, the petitioner has already filed a rejoinder to
d_€,/Ix
4 W.P.1132’?iE)9
the written statement denying the allegations _
written statement and the sa1nefie”‘teken
Therefore, there is no need for the petitioner the V
piaint to incorporate the avermetitemade the Vrejoinder.
3. Even ot11eI”Wise”,* entitled to cieny
the allegations made etéitement in his
evidence. Even’ abeefiee of pleading in the
piaint, the ieQ:ft:12d”er&V”‘eM:1 efbfigtation to consider the
evidence eddineecijf vt.V1_:ie.,4:’};zetitioner in relation to the
aver°me33t_s_ z=z1legat.iof:_sV’I;i1ade in the Written statement.
«.1A;he~-‘:o.j find no justifiable. gound to
inlpugned order. Accordingly, the
t””–vv’;1etitien_.’4 is v~he”rje’by dismissed without reference to the
‘ ‘ i.’ir:’€%$1’1*0I1z:ie11″t~55; ti’
Séie
1é&%e
aw