W P No.665W2008 1 19% THE man coum or KARNATAKA A'? L-é " DATED THIS THE 23115 DAY OF'_.JANUAR_YH »' 1-in Karim ma. WRIT PEFYPION BETWEEN: Khalcel Al1mcd@ S10 M Hazarat Sah§cb," Age: 64 ywrs, R/at rqo;i_1:;_11,' ' Nagappa Block,' ---- "'I::, " (By Sri Y K Na1'ayau"_z_; an a"m. a for pet1Bo' ' net) 1. The _ The Fagtigry V 'Ei'ac1m'y Pmxiaiscs Prensa), _ Box No. 1245:, :xidsau_z'nstitutc"o£ Science, C§i:t€le;«Ik1<iiai1.Insti£11te of Science 9.0., 012. 'V A Dr.' Iyengar, S-[v6"}a£t': Rangaswamy Iycngar, 87 years, RV/at New No.54, 01:} No.30, W P No.6652i2008 163* Cross, 11*'! Main, Bangalore-55. I 3. Magor, Employee of BH EL, Porcelain Division, F P D Premises, V Post Box No. 1245, - _ Indian Institute ofScienoe P.O., A A Mafieshwaram, _ ' Bangalore---560 012, I W/o B W Ramanng Cimvda,' ' Major, . . ' . 'A No.91!)-A, W 'A' WCR 1! Stage, '-- ' V " % Basaveshwaranagar, ' ' ' Bangalre-660 086_. _ Row at No.3 19,1' West of cmm _ T Respondents
M/3. Associates, Adv., for 124,3 and 4)
“(B’y’_Smt~e_.S Nagoor Roja, Adv., for respondents)
nu-an
Writ Petition is mad under Articles 226 G5 227 of the
VTLL’-fi (3<3I13titutio11 of India, praying to quash the order dated 192.2%
on I.As.12 a.-ad 13 in O S No.1206/1998 by the Court of VI!
"Addl. (I3ivi1Judge, Bangabre City (OCH No. 19) as per Azmexure—L and
allow the said LA-13 and dism1'ssl.A~12.
w 9 Na.6652/2608
. This Petition coming on forpxe11mIna1y' ' ' V'
Court made the following:
The petitioner/pLaiz1tifi’ in no; of City
Civil Judge at Bangalore City, praying for
qumhing the order dated’ and XII! in the
abovefiaid mm at V. .
2. ” _;’:)e1:it:ioner submits that the
petitioner has filed respondenm for declaration that
he isfille site acquired under 2: registered
sale and also to declare that the sale in respect
imjthc seit– elite’ ‘eafendant No.1 in favour of defendant N0s.3
cemmenoement of evidence on the side of the
thedefeizdants med LA-XI! under Order VII Rule 1 1 of c P
/1 of the Cmopexative Soc1e’tu:s’ ‘ Act for re3ect1on’ ‘ of
V the plajnfifi filed an appfieation under Order
17 of C P C seeking permission to amend the piaint and
delete prayer (b) and (:5), but the trial Court, without considering LA-
?
E
K.
W P 140.6652/2093
4
XIII consflemd LA-XII and allowed the
consequence ofwhiach rejected I.A~»XIII] aII_1cxV1d_1ncn’i” ” .
by the petitioner. In other words, the
Counsel for the pefifimner is that ha?’ tige *
pe1Im’tt;m’ g the plainm” to amend the pféygr am «Eek-.§-.¢’ fimg-er (b) am
(e) of the plaint, LA-XII filed a¢£:”ndgzgt”«wou1a mve become
. E ctuous_ i -. I .
3. Learned submits that she has
no objection allow IIII I’ I1. I
4. Than; for the trial Court to allow LA-
XI§i]an1end:1;’ae;;t: by the plaintifii The trial Court
erréd and cavalier approach.
In4″v71c§¢:o.f4’the above, the Writ Petition is allmmd and the
631:1: dated 19.2.2003 pawed on I.As.XII we! xm in 0 5
” ]I~”rso,12oé’,{ on the file of City Civil Judge at Emmy;-c City, is
Conscqucnfly, i.A-X.’!II med by the pctiiimcr/pmn@’ tmdar
VI Rule 17 of C P C, is allowed pcrmitIm’ g the plminfifi to
[V
W f’ No.6652J2003
5
amend the plaint, as prayed for. in View of the
sought for by the p}ain’!:ifi’, LA-XII filed l§»y”‘defcn¢:?:_:a:e:z_t;. HI2<')1; '
surv1v' as for consideration and the same 'V
costs.
The trial Court The parties an:
directed to appeag-“‘b1£_fpiA§?v~ fmrther proceedings on
24.2.2009, ” –
3d/5%»
Iudfl