WP 3425612911
IN THE HEGH COURT 0;? KARNA5£Z?i'{KA _x:;:".4gA3§ G m_,QRf:'
DATED THIS THE 24% «. "
B33985:
THEE HN*BLE: ?«1R.J'L:sf§:cE B.'$.._P,;mf§.L
W.P.No*14266/2Q_I'1_{€zM~CPC). __
BETWEEN:
Sr}. K'N.Narayar1a Recidy,
S/0 fate Nanjappa Rsifgidy,-'
Aged about 60 yf::EifS.
R/at Balappa
K_rishna1"ajapTé1ram",V V
Banga10r6f{3_V6. V 'V * 17
AND:
Sri H.N .Sa'ihi$h, V.
S/0 H.,_i/'.Nagaraj,' " V
A" £'\.ged'- 3501;: years, """ '"
R/2: _Nr_:¢ 1'20, .E{:3;x;<?rL
' 'Ra1*na::;0é'r:hyfi3ig::f:,
Bgngzilsré; .
. . . PETITIONER
(By sri M?S.Na§éféja...xAdv.3«
.. . . RESPONDENT
(By sr§..A.1;i.§*§§gy, Adv. for cm)
This 'Writ petiiian is ffieé under Artides 226 & 22'? ef the
:v.v4A"'--«(:':o:1$t§f;utir;sn of India, praying' to quash tbs irnpugneé orfler
= < »§3{a$Vseéi--..«by the iearneé 2401 Ade:fi.C:£y Civil & Sessions Judge,
" _Ba::gaf,r.i:re City in O.S.N0.3f32'?'/G'? yids Pmnex:,:r*€~C and 6:9.
This petiéima Cenzing an far preiinzinary %:€3ri1":g {his siay,
" Cczzzri made me f{}§§{}'éfi:":gi
we 14266,/2011
:2
ORDER
1. Petitiener is the plaintiff in the Tria} Court.
in qnestien the oreiet’ dated 05.04.2011 rejeetiing
filed for amendment of the piaint.
:2. Petitioner has Sought for’ a_inieneir_ne’;it te»”theV4_p1ai;i;1tta
mention the measurement ef as 4
acres 20 gtintas instead “3: acfeee aewnientiened in
the piaint and the prayer his application,
the plaintiff con§tei’ieie:_’:i that niaint, the extent
was shown including the kharab
portion. detetdégzthe measurement of the
land had :b_een_ Q0 guntas and therefore, the
pleadings Wei”e–«req2iire__d Af’f)»’b€”>iV8tfI1€HC1€fC1. He also contended that
..~’ dVi’s~3:%regianVey in””th.is.«regard eame to his knowledge Very
V.’E’a€C€,IVI’§E}–f. ‘
it 3. was ebgeeted by the defendant
_ee-ntendinjgH_Ainter aha that thetigh the suit was filed in the year
the tries: me C{)Ii’1F£i€§1{:€§ in the }?éi’€i}’ 2008, the
—-.ii’iai:itiifi’ kept: quiet; nntii the rnattez’ was pesieéi fer ergninente
end enij; 3%? the :~;it/ztge ef azggunientei the zipeiieatiezi has heen
thee whieht §é2{?}{€§ éiiigenee and ?)(3i”E£i§i!i§€Si
«:7
At /9′
3′ /J
we xsgfieeeyeeti
4. The court below bee rejected tttte
as the trig} had cemnleneed anti ee the.re’éx:as r:e.”.;:.h:1e ditige’:v:ee’vV
an the part ef the piairztiff, t?ieV:V.’eme11diTseri’te fleet be
permitted. V ‘ _’ V
5. I have heard the 1’ea;’ne(§_ C.:_ C1Ev1I”i’:?.§’1n§(3§f the parties and
perused the pieadiegs ang:§.tE<:»e.
6. It is not EI)).:.’k.(:~}1§E«;’@V1′-:l”,’£€ that the e«ntirje~.e:_:tef:1t of land measures
4 acres 29 portion. Excluding
the ef the land bearing Sy.
No.19 is V}>;’ac:’¢sV plaintiff has come up with the
plea that by him measures 4 acres 29
….gunta.e.Z{ whereas iti~vf}}€ sale deed, the extent is mentioned as
“=_enty’«<1~'gu_::tas teaving apart the kharab portion;
?g.. V .¢_e.The_fe.:;eeVV"Qf_:.~the plaintiff is that this discrepancy was
netteefi bfjhief jfjeunsei at a tater stage in the preeeedings and
itzzrneciteteijé thereafter he has; eeme up with the applieatien to
V' ezttzfiz rjttt the eerreetien by seeking amendment. It cannot be
that time aeeertien eéafie by the ptai:1t1ZffEaekeé benafidee
, tee tehgzt titete wee any EEC}: et" zjétigeiéee es": the part ef tee
t3§at:2t:::§£' in eetetztg f{:erwa:*et with the emenéeteett The eetuze ef
'WP 14288/20M
discrepancy netieed and the nature of atn1e:1c11:1.erittVteimgizt
makes it Clear' that in all prabability the g3iai::t:fi'*'$§%etsV
of the inadvertent mistake that had ‘–3}§p1:ee.tii§3§._.Ate.
Correct the same. In such eireufa;§ta.nees§”the V’E’ria.} e’ught”=
to have kept the interest__ ef justIee”vi:1’=:t1ind’a:1(iAAaBvewed the
application. Further, in etensideirevd4i%:e’xz;Lthe grant of prayer
for amendment wfllnot if},’8;i1′}'”. tnanneg’ :£:;r;;;’c1i;::§e any new ease
or adversely after}: intefestof the ‘defeftcieint.
8. Hen’ee’,”theT;W:rifffi.peti’tiei:1 is eiiievéed. The impugned order
is set ast«.ie§’ ‘ The ~:a§§p’ifVetéat,ie’::__ filed seeking amendment is
consequently’attoweti, VAThe:p1aintiff~petitioner is permitted to
— parry 3:s{*;t the ameficE;r:1e:1t,v
9) «V Ceu’rise§’A.fer the respendent is right and justified in
;’;Qtizee of the eeurt that the suit: is of the year
200′? ._end. further delay in the finalizatien ef the
-4.._p:<eeeedifige'1~22veuid affect the §I"1'tZ€f€S"t ef the defendant. in the
1:gh?;_ the eubmieeien maée by the Counsel for the
V"'t…_"Vé4eeg3'[i::t1det:t§ I find it expefiteet te fitreet the C€)t1t'i; beige: te
ulexpeéite the 311%: 3:263; éiepeee ef the same £':?i?;§"}E§{1 three ttaemhs
free: the éate ei" receipt; ef 3. sgtepjg ef this eréeii The §Eei2':tiff~
VVP 14286X2011
pefitiorxér shafi mat; unduly prowaci the pmceedingfs anszfshafl
C€;~€;pe;rate wiih the Caurt in speedy di$p{3$a1 as directr::¥'.:3:E;Qi?':7f