High Court Karnataka High Court

Malleshappa S/O Shankarappa … vs Ravi S/O Shivsharnappa Jelolli … on 6 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Malleshappa S/O Shankarappa … vs Ravi S/O Shivsharnappa Jelolli … on 6 September, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
 *  (By Shfi. I-'3~{I:). vflzfiflgéfirkj, Advocate]
 A J V

c  Raxri, 
_ /c).V'S11_i.~z/sharnappa Jelolli,
 _ =AgeG§ 37 Years, OCC: Agriculture,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBAR(}§£_:',,j' 1:    A 
DATED THIS THE 6m DAY  IE0 Q A  
BEFORE V     A A'
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE' 
W.P. NO.8325$/201AQ.iIC}M¥'CPCj'  
BETWEEN: A  A  A 

1.

. Malleshappa, –

S/0. Shankarappa§’.ICI0lli,’g :: A A
Aged 61 years_…OCC:?§Ig1ic’u1.’tI,IrCt V .

2. Vijaykumafi 5<.;:__ V " _ '
S/0. Ma1}eshappa;,JelCS';li, _ _
Aged 35 yCar__s,- OCC:VA.griCjuit1_1'Iv'e, ' –

3. Nagaveni. I ‘- .

D/0. Shamappa, ”

Aged ‘years, OC:’c.:V__AgI’iCu1ture.

Somelingdhalii.

Tamkf ChinC”{IQ’1Ii,V Dist. Gulbarga. : Petitioners

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would be a complete bar to

permit such an amendment, after the had

commenced. Since the trial court has ailowed this”

application after the commencement rii’11.s

counter to the legal prohibition.:=__ It ..,that l’

the learned counsel for .the__ petitioner a.li’asr.v4sou_§ghtl to:

present this writ petition.

4. H5,’Ving ‘regard the-flfac’tl admittedly, there

were two egalrlieifl’sv£;leltrans~actio15;S,__under which two acres ‘

of land a’iitotaljteirtelnt…of”l)4 acres 05 guntas had
been and »ab§’rVi_nadVertence or by overlooking the

fact thatlllltwo had been sold, the suit had

brought. it plaintiff having realised the factual

defect .c’la:i1:iing the extent of land as 04» acres 05

sought necessary correction by way of

ll’-.,amend,In’ent. This is found as a fact by the trial Court

allowing the amendment. The contention that the

__effect of amendment would cause a change in the nature

.. ,

commencement of triai. This is a Circumstance. on.
which the trial Court has been satisfied, g0inge’.._h5?_V the
reasons afforded by the tria} court, and

in the said contention, as weil.

The Writ petition tacks 1i1erit.Aa?.1d–ee» i1s..”aCc<')'r§1img3y,

rejected.

t    EUDGEE