DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY_QF_MAR.'£;H',"ifbfifiwii _
BEFOREZ'-._
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A._N--.,_VVENU.c5OPALI§'V'GQSl\{Pl§ %
warr PETITION No.2:2jss/29ps%(c-mecpc):
NMDH Knan.-jnnvuuvun,
w/o;:.m=. R;-V-kiaIS*HVN.A”~REEiD¥_’ ~
53
2 i-i}1raiiiviAi€i?¢*i%’&’iED”‘r
5/0. LATE’ szjve-:RisHMAV%saE%:)ov
AGED ABOUT .e;7 YRS
3 1RAr§sAPuaADA;xsHciKAREonv
.; ‘S,!.(_) L_A,T’E.. R KRISHNA maoov
V ABOUTv=–‘¥2″YRS
% ‘4 RAr–4cs.é;I>uaADA VENKATESH
V BELLRRV EIST.
1 vfiffl ‘!.ATE.R KPJSHHA REDDY
‘ AGED ABOUT 37 YRS
ALL ARE ‘R’/’AT MAGALA VILLAGE, HADALIGAL1 TQ
srrrmoueas
(rsfsMT. v. VIDYA FOR sax. K RAGHAVENDRA mo)
~ NAND:
SMT KAPPI GUNDAWA
W/0 LATE KAPPI GUNEPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YRS
Ni
R/’AT iviAGAi.A ‘v’iLi.fiiG-E
HADAGALL1 TQ
BELLARY DTST
( BY SR1. S S GUTTAL. ADV.)
THIS wen’ PETITIION 1’i’fi:..”F1LED”‘U:hi1Dt:=;R4V}§itfiCLEs it
226 AND 227 or THE “C9NST’iT’U;fi_f5i\’e-.§3F ii\iiTi&7’RAY”NG
‘re QUASH THE iawueaee T. .
T
LE:-“aRNEfl CI’u’IL.3UDGE-V{3E%..jBN.–) HADAf_=.A.!_1 nu
QwSviuN–Q=-5!D3′.vC$&g~..’:.£AnE’. vmé Ahi’N?E,.._ALLOW Ti-II warr
PETITION -‘
ehuwfavr preiimihary hr-rind B
d ‘r”0iJi.’), “?.’..’.”é”cVb”i-Id’ made. _the faiiswihc:
_ _ i’eRoER
P?etiti9her’VAVh’adV filed o.s.75/zoos against the
‘resaicrid–ehtldefendant for decree of specific performance in
resae-.*t~ i’4-edit schedule prepertyi The suit aiaim is based
on ahaareement dated 31.3.2uu1. Piaihtiff had filed I.A.2
‘under order 6 Rule 17 CFC to delete para 4 on page 2 of
[the piaint and para 8 on page 4,. lines 1 to 5 therein. The
reasons for seeking the said amendment was that there
was a mistake committed in drafting the piaint by merely
L
L ._n I 1 4 LVQnn.–.
‘ .
L1. ‘
u d–‘§fi57″ ._III°:=i_, ‘-.
filing of the suit, which also contained _1someT;;n’1istoltw¥ ” it
Defendant had filed objections toA,,I.£i_;2.,7′ ‘Consljderle’e_titeA
some and after hearing theldarned”counseiefajsgaaarlntg on
both sides, the trial court by:im:_o1tdar’.dated 1s.1.2oo5,
has dismissed the appiltatiotn, 2.tieifiQ,’,i§{§§fleved by which,
2. Heard_,.”tha’ e.opearl.no on both sides
and pe~ruse.?d.,:t:h_e. ” ‘ ‘
3A,’ .Learnsd’V appeadng for the petitioner
‘Subl:fliii§d uxtl*ia.i_’._,” ‘aerosol of Anraexure-D, the sale
a is no deliver» of
=_«-lg!’-*j’_r~a._it is steer that th_. , ..
oessessiar 5?. the oi-‘dirty’ tit-rein L”fii”‘ ‘sunset
furtne’r,t_vcont7ended that the written statement has not been –
tiled hystthe defendant and it is also not- the case oi’ the
V.4″-defendant that, the possession of suit schedule property
….otas delivered under the agreement in question. Hence,
merely because, a bone flde mistake wasscomrnltted-while
considered in accordance with ienrend in1.’propIer,eitercise ‘*
of Jurisdiction, the trial Court has
4. Per contra, Sri S;S”;e’5u”ai,’— ._iear_”nedg ‘counsel V
appearing for the thet”in”the facts
and circumstances of the me, the t.rielf]§’.’,oe_rt is justified in
passing the impuigieed –
5, is, “whether the trial
Courtf has ‘ eggs; 1”:.4i’iie4jeiiy end’ has faiied to exercise
juri*dir;tion._ vested] ‘in it?_.”‘=.
5- .6, orrperusel of the sale agreement, copy of which
haeliloeen pecoduceties Annexure-D, it is clear that there is
deliliierfivpossesslon of the property mentioned in the
schedule thjereef, by t..e exautnnt thereof in ! veil !’ the
purchasers. In the otuections uleu s. IJL2, it is not the
cflgfé’ Of the defendant that, there was delivery of
‘ ,.__1fl_?v’possession of property, in View of which, the stamp duty
paid on the agreement was Insufficient and consequently,
the document requires to be impounded, ordering payment
/
/,.
LAIQQ2. is telten ewav bv th
*1′ duty and pnaity. S31. 5.5. Guttel, teamed .
stated that the possession of suit »Aproperty”‘iie§_wvnot ‘*
delivered to the plaintiff. when §.3uchjfE37thaehlmeteriliileliatnttit
on record, the trial Court byv’mi–sdireotlrrq itself; h.jes.,.,pe§ssed *
the impugned order refuslng_t’_i:te:_ permit’ plaintiff to
delete para 4 of the-«tilalrét, ;1wiferfeln’~lt_he plaintiff had
defendant the same. Since
the said document in question
and aleo the defendant in the suit, in
my vietilwthe failed to properly exercise
dlse§*etle..n \rested”l’n ltand has acted illegally in dismissing
E
._, _, .._ pr_po__-
anuendrfient…t’-he the liiegaiity is apparnt, the la-npegned
it wconsequently the trial Court is directed to, permit the
\\X’
X,-
deletlon In the plalnt, In terms of the prayer m5 4_
costs.
Kail-