Karnataka High Court
Munirajappa vs Chikkamuniyappa on 17 June, 2009
IN THE HIGH comm 0? KARNATAKA, BANcég=*§:_oi:~g:é?%}%'%
swan THIS THE 17?" DAY_QE,3_£!NE'2_'Gi4}§'.';V»
BEFORE é H
mg HOIWBLE MR.JUSTIC§£V_lf£";-!$gl.i'Gf¥€§:.€®'iC3§f!i?§.:l§
WRIT ¥>ETIT§ON :xso:_; 5733-1:Sj';315;2ao9%(G:»e:»¢cp%.*)
BETWEEN:-
Murx:£Pua;JA:v?.,:a. %
S/O.LATE TF§IPP§5;:$1VA'~{fijx«KA-
AGED" As<fm1f."5,5"YEAR§.i1;--- "
RfO.8AVAI%iAH;'5;%;.;!_IV\i'Z,¥.;LéX§E
§v§""§133i'I'T3r."E'i§AVl'3»$fi§$fiEEP M K, fi\BVs.,)
%%%%%
i £'H;KKA}M$Ni3'?%pPA
" As;*t3%..LATs%%%APs§AHApPA
A559 ALa;<3:;§"§* 65 YEARS
A fflUNE~KE§;ISHNAPPA
. S;'Q.LA"'I"E APPAIAH
A§5E*§§} A808? 59 YEARS
?:;::=~:A:x:mz,ewA @ cz~:A:~:DaANAYAKA
' 5:2/G.APPAIAHféAYfi:KA
SEGED ABQUT 30 YEARS
r7L'~'''''V
'\ ,,/
2. At the time of final arguments, pel:iti§e.._eVr:.A.fi~led
application I.A.¥~lo.6 under Order 6 re"
péaint, I.A.No.7 under Order 18 ?.i_Il_e 1?4'€Al5'C. to rersizelri t:he"3A:.a"§':=.e"'wey
and I.A.No.8 under Sec.1S1 CPC"Vto::'ra¢ail pm :.'ianVr:i;§I.Vll1;.N0.9
under Order 7 Rule 14---A CiZl?'€~.'.§to Under
the impugned crrder, vAA.',j'V_rej.ected all the
aPi3lications. Hen§€'A?ih«:i'3 writ V
3' Thé filing I.A.No.6
is to deiete.,en--e' ifefié.cf:tl3.e"'pél.e'int'xheduée and to include in its
place anot§1er"'ep;rcpVertya[ ether three applications are in
4¢9nnectl€lh'Vw~ith thVe"pVre_pos::eé amendment. It is net in dispute
'Ath__a£' tiiu-*:li:se eir§;;iir;eii§o;ns are filed at the time of finai arguments.
If tiiearéséendment is afiowed, it will ameunt to de---
rneve trial. is impermissible in iaw. By rejecting the
';§r§3;§Gaed.A arriencimerrt, petitioner is net barred to work nut his
iii respect ex' the property now sought to be included in
tli;é""$fiit. Therefore, my prejueice has been caused to the
feetitierzer under the impugned order. I find no justifiable
greased to interfere with the imeugned order. Accerdingly the
/W"
'aw
writ peiition £5 hereby rejected without refe2Pr§r1t;jeV_~.:V1V:'c':'_
respondents.
dh*
n $ _