IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY DE J'AN'U'A§i:Y.2'0:iQ.VV H V
BEFORE; 5 é %
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS'fI (3EV_ A1\'IAA1\:I2D» E1<R2:REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nc).V6r"é----!2EQ_F'2{).iO ('GM-:CFjC)
BETWEEN:
Sri.R.Jagadesh,_
Aged about 52 Eyeafis'; _ _ "
Son 0fLate HjP¥_iIapp:é., _ ,
Residing at l\r1a1§:as;:g_ndra 'V'-i1l'a--§_;e_,é
H0sk0te"lTT'aTiui.<,,7fE
Bangalore Rural E ...PETITIONER
( B y Shri . KTVV'--;a:f9a1d'uT ;1j ;11i;._Ad.}{Dcate)
V ' . R ."C"i,T_«z:1n'dA':'z
Agéd__;:b{)"uf'_;$5
Son of Sri=Ru'c£1'appa,
. Residing "at Ktjralur Viklage,
.. "N21davaih,i__ 130st,
* :*H('):s'kD_te Talui_<,
T 'Bua'n--ga_i.Dre District. RESPONDENT
Shri.D.I\/Ianjunath, M.M.Law Chambers_, Advocates)
– -4′! J–3
»I<r2«-.<4~«.<
é
Ix.)
This Wm Petition is tiled under Articles 22o'_'la"n'di.22i:7".ofthe
Constitution of India praying to quash the order d'ated:jf2.7Z I ll ;'2-.O(_A)9
passed on l.A.No.l2 in O.S.No.385/"L997 or-.1"the-.o'fi.le'ofthey lac'
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divi,§ion);' Court,-1'Bangalorelylfiural. u
District at Bangalore, produced at Anrnexfure-iA and'et.c.i ~
This Writ Petition ct)iniit.g""o.n for"preiirninary:"hearing this
day, the Court made the following;-_l"
Heard the Counsell_tor
2,__The””pe’tEtione_r piai.ntttifl’ before the Trial Court. On
cornplet:’.on= o’i”7 final arguments, the defendant —
respondentlhadl cholsento file an application under Order Vl Rule
–__l7 .__to incoi’porate certain amendments to the written
Lstatertientgpil ».Fi.t_’stl.y, to deny the signature appearing in the
agreeurne;iVE…. th4atiiw’as the subject matter of’ the suit, as a forged
ii””~,l’signature,..ii’ Secondly, that the agreement was insufficiently
_lstalrnpe’d and thirdly, raising a question of limitation. The trial
court has allowed the application on the contention of the
it defendant — respondent, which is sought to be reiterated before
6
this court, that pleadings were already in place_.§’_in”‘the:—-iorifgi_ir1aVl
written statement on these aspects and the”‘a’ii1″ieirt’drrIen’ts were
mere] arn lification of statements’–_and*~”leadin’?is’ vyitiichlii-Was
already available on record. ‘I”h.is”~t:ontentioncould”no’t'”ha’ye been
accepted by the trial cotirt ir1VAtailow.ingi_.the an’re.ridv’inenL of the
written statement, at the lstage’?-3/h_icili– stood posted.
Eience, on the, iace~.()f§;_it,§ .the’«.ord.e-r.VVpassed on interlocutory
application 1iio.X.I”} ii9re.glul’ar,anditoutgof place.
T’hAerefoi’e,l”tllf:-e_li »ppeta;Em_ is allowed. The order on
Interl()cut()rly-._vapplicatiovnlKno.XII is quashed. lt is for the
..ydef’e’itda1i;Li, who clalints—-*that the pleadings already on record would
su’ffii_cient’ly.iestaibllish his case, which is merely sought to be
arnp»1iified,.byi’4way of written statement, to sustain his case, if at
‘”<_'l"all. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
I] V