P C Harinathan vs G Muniswamy on 25 August, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA'Lo'R_E

DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF AuGusT;"'2oioo..'_.jj    _

BEFOREWV T V

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.  

WRIT PETITION NO.' 1_8_53«8'/2_ o"1o    V'
BETWEEN:      

Sri P.C.Harinathan, '

S/o. T.Chenga Reddy, _

Aged about 66_years,_...  _ '-

R/at Aaimata.TgeII1p|€.Roac:1; V _ _ .
Garden, Ben_so:§>T_owri,  A " 

Near NIIT 'T g"-Ro__ope:_Ia 'Agr'ah:'araV,'
Banga|ore~..:~".'S€s'Q O63...  ..  

 """       " ...PETITIONER
(By srr uS'."Rajas_rIeA:§§ar"'B.t.§Ck"'Coats, Adv.)

 _

  SrAi'L'rG."MuniswaIfiAy,

.. V S/0';~.Goyindaswamy,
 Agfed. 'a?)fo,IIt 45 years,
3 "~VA'Resid'igjng'.I=at Singasandra village,
 Be.gurIiHob|i,
Bangalore South Taluk.

 AA  Narayanappa,
 ..=S/o. late Puttappa,

Aged about 60 years.

" 3. Sri Venkatesh,

S/o. Narayanappa,
Aged about 36 years.



4. Sri Puttaraj,
S/o. Narayanappa,
Aged about 33 years.

5. Sri Srinivas,
S/o. Narayanappa,  
Aged about 30 years. '

All are residing at Maruthi Nag'a_r,"
Kaikondrahalli village, " " .
Varthur Hobli,  _
Bangalore South,»Taluk,,~" --. V' 
Now called Bangalijre E-{ast tram} 
"    --    RESPONDENTS

(By Sri S.K.Ve'nl_.5),:

gl"'Thifs..writ "pjétiti'o.n"'is filed" under Articles 226 and 227
of the Cons'ti'i_'ut_iovng'of_g1'ndi--a-praying to call for the records
in o.'s.No.5448;o7 'pe_n'din-g on the file ofthe Hon'ble xxvn:
Addl. City-Ciyi-l J'Lidge;'*...Banga|ore (CCH-9); Set aside the
order dated" 6.3--..20_10""'in O.S.No.5448/07, passed by the
ljI:§)n'V"bfl.e XXVI3.'_VAddl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH --~9)
vp.a:ss;_e4;1 on app'l'i"cati'on filed by petitioner under Order VI

 =.Rule_  .of*-CPC., as Annexure --J.

A  Ti1is'wpe'tition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'

it ' Group ythrilsday, the Court made the following:

ORQER

Plaintiff is the petitioner. Respondents are

 defendants. Relief prayed in the suit is permanent

injunction. Suit was contested by filing written statement.

Application for temporary injunction was filed and an order

is

//'

/g



of temporary injunction was granted. Petitionp'e:r_'__i'a§il:e{:}es

that the said order was violated andV__,t:"heVhdefenda-n_tVs"*~.._

entered into possession of the    

application to take actioncfopr disohe'diencev.«"'.l. sAIiegirio""th'at,V
in view of the events that  taken ~place subsequent to

the filing of the suit,' an appli_ca'tloni"seekingarnendment of

plaint to incorporate_aVd:dl.tional:p!'e~a."a.:h;Vd'--'-additionai prayers
was filed.   by the defendants
and  'objections, has dismissed
thes,l IlA§  orplialht. Aggrievecl, the Dlaintiff
has Vl"i'leVd"this 

 _2. 'll-levard"'th.e learned counsel on both sides and

i  " .  writmpapers.

V'3*.f'jPV.é'tiVtioner and 5 others have filed separate suits

augainstthe respondents herein in respect of lndividuai

  'sites held by them. In the companion suits, simiiar

 applications seeking amendment of piaint were filed and in

few suits the amendment was allowed and in another suit

the amendment was disallowed, ie, in O.S.7185/2007.
/'f

A'



Allowing of amendment was questioned«V...._ti'yV.':"the"J."

respondent herein in W.P.12295/2009. '.i'_lfi'i"::._:.(Zcit:J1'rVtVl"didhot

find merit in the writ petition aridlthie 'same-Iwas'--dVismVi'ssed. if

4. The plaintiff in o.ps.5902/2.007 is siirriiserlizp
placed like the petition'er:."i» hadV"~.so'ut;jhtzKE  similar

amendment, which:'*~was5'V.d"i_sAa':!'!..g=.ziied, plaintiff in

.O.S.5902/2007  disailowing the

amendment 'ilrrjl.P.fiZ652#'20'1(j:.' *:."Fh.e...said writ petition was

ailowed...  ord--e.iri--..vdated....  2010 passed therein

agai1nst"t'he reap-~o4nd.e'ntsV"has become final.

 K5. uSi..n"ce~"the respondents herein are parties to

~....,_Vi!.VP.E2C:5'2,!2O1OVflmaind as the petitioners are similarly

 VlVii<e'.i~'the petitioners in other petitions, for the

Ar-easc_ivns_i.?eA<l:orded therein, the impugned order has to be

 AA Tqualshed and the prayer of amendment deserves to be



In the resuit, the writ petition is aiiowed. The
impugned order stands quashed. I.A.6 filed under 0.6

5/

, I



R.17 CPC dated 24.2.2009 stands allowed 

petitioner paying cost of Rs.3,000/- to 

the Trial Court on the next dateiillofi'hearinfg.-   

shall incorporate the  amendnrient v"tt';en'.--;é'plaVi"nt
simultaneously with the pa"ynjh'ent/de'poVs'i't  and
the defendants havefthe  additional written
statement, with referen't:eV plaint, within 4
weeks of  out and a copy of
the  on the learned counsel

whc::Vappe"ai*v:f.or  defevndantsl.

 .....  

Q’.-ll