G Gopal Reddy, S/O. Ramalingappa, vs Mohammed Shalam, S/O Maldi Dada on 18 February, 2010

 ' 'R/0 _I"i..eI~foI'1..1.6.84.
 ~_ VRaiCf1t1uIf.».__ '~ "

V A 2. M'ohafim;é:d Khaja

 =  Bed Maker,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA.

DATED THIS THE 18'" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 
BEFORE CCCCC
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT   
WRIT PETITION NO.80608  
BETWEEN: K 4  C C' V C
G. Gopal Reddy S/0 Rama1inéé%§pae,_V V

Age: 45 years, OCC: Bu;s.inessV,A------ _ 
R/0 H.No.10.8.21, ' ' 

Martalpet,   V:
  .   Petitioner
{By Sri. Veeresiz  Petilv C
AND  1 C C
1. Mohainnéied smar11s,x¢ Maldi Dada.
Aged about 24' Vy-,ear_s,' '  "

Oecf Agrieuiitgre.
Private E_mp10ye'e,**"

 Bres'th3}varpe:,

. S/O'l\(Ié1ldi Dada,
' Aged about 21 years.



Ex.)

Aged about 21 years,

Oce: Bed maker, Agriculturist.
R/0 H.NO.}1.6.84.

Bresth Warpet, Raiehur.

3. Bade Sab S/0 Maldi Dada,

Aged about 17 years,

Oec: Student, Minor

Represented by his father    A
and natural guardian Maldi Dada___ 
S/0 Shalm Sat), Aged about 27°'years",
Occ: Old gunny bags busimgss, " 
}-I.No. 1 1.06.84, Bresth Warpet,
Raichur.  A

4. D. Ramesh S [0 SatyaI1a1f'ayana_,'  A
Age: Major,» C)'eC'_i-Ag§r_ic1;11tti1re.   as A
R/0 Kasbe'--Ca.sfn_p_, ~.  _ -- 

Tq: DistfRaiaehi1r:--- . "  '  

____ H   52;. h  Respondents

(By Sri;__Ve_e1'a1V1iia'"Gduda._ Advocate for R-I 8: R-3,
Sri. RS. MaI.ip'a1__:iI_. A.giv9c--ate for R-2}

This  P.e..titi"or10"1's filed under Articles 226 and

 3t_._f1f1e__C0ttstit.1.1tior1 of India, praying for quashing
  _in1}aug1114:eVt3.. __order dated 31.01.2009 passed by the

:Jv.;r;'dge (Jr.Dn.), & JMFC~II at Raichur on

IA¥X;_5V{IIv_i~n '_Q.-S.No.306/96 as at Annexure~'E' to the writ

  _' ' ,petitio'n_'and etc.



to v_st~l.at.ell'thatlf an.___applicatior1 is moved i.e. I.A.No.2l

 under Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for

'senior declaijatilon that the sale deed is null and void and is

A ~:ii1ot,ib~i.nding on the plaintiffs. T he petitioner M Defendant

This petition coming on for orders this day, the
court. made the following:

0 R D E R
Even though the matter is listed for  
the consent of both the sides, it is  ..

disposal.

2. The matter   'manner:

Respondents' 1  against the
petitioner    the suit and
 No.1, for injunction

as wellxpasn -of 'the Record of Rights. All

the defenda__nts written statement. Suffice it

ariiendmeiitof the pleadings so as to include the prayer



  gnjtnd App 255: {AIR 1921 PC 50) and

6

A.K.GUPTA AND SONS LTD., VS. DAMODAR VALLEY
CORPORATION reported in AIR 1967 SC 96:

"{7} It is not in dispute that at the date 
application for arnendrnent, a suitfor   
claim under the contract was   l
general rule, no doubt, is t:liat"a. party.x'._not=f? 
allowed by arnendrnent to se't«yuj;$_A_Aa'lr1e--tu iii
a new cause of action Vj:5_astticular.ly wltenl 

on new case or cause' action. isi"barred:

Weldon 1). Neale. {   But' it is
also well    amendment
does not  of a new cause
of    but amounts
toil no  different or additional

apljroacn   the amendment will

be allowed  the expiry of the statutory

..period of V limivt'ation: see Charan Das v. Amir

   Co. Ltd v. Jardine Skinner and
'* __"Co.,_ SCR 438: {AIR 1957 SC 357). "



7
6. Having perused the impugned Order. I am of the
View that granting of application for amendment cannot

be faulted.

7. There is no merit in this Writ petiti0n.--'j"}'vI:enc=eA

the writ petition is rejected.

Since the suit is of the 1_.9'§6'.:--:ti1e"iearned'Trié11
Judge is directed to dispose    the
outer limit of six 'frorn ««Fii§:éipt of this
 . . ' .  'A K         H

     .....