High Court Karnataka High Court

Sampaiah vs Narayanappa on 18 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sampaiah vs Narayanappa on 18 September, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil


“AB-.:!!”‘l muuxl Ur RAKNRIMRSA HIUH U?’ KARI’-!AfAKA HES?! COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAYAKA HIGH COURT OF &(ARNi¥TAKM H16}-3 I

IN THE IEEQ-I CODE’ OF KARE’-tTAI{A AT B

mm THIS am 18″‘ D»: or smmmn, 2003

BHYIKE

TI-IE I-ED]:-I”BLE1~!I§. mass 3 * V

W. P.N’O.10524/2008 cV::.z¢f-c£’C)-

1- saxmxaa 5

3:0 mm ‘A L-

A-339 new 58 ” V

RIAT YE’1’£’AIfl33.’.__ _ %
mmmm ;;ara*§AHnkaaas.T, _
‘a’*’Ifi ‘
TALUKt*’~§’.’3f?1*RRAV33$$ffl…V ‘I’.

2 Imlsi-:Hmm~r.A’ ”

mm
94:3:-:3 35
MAT nanmamm ‘
,=;;*+;LL§-firs

A % ._n1:smIm:

.._’i’fi,Iv£I3″g2«§3\13§I.V$~’ExTE 92.-rxrxonmzs

,_ my ‘5::i__~.- ft, szammva REDDY, am I

ff kxarérmapra
‘*5.-‘6 LATE mwma
‘mm new as mm.-3

RIPE’ YETTELKOIFI VEIAQE
FQST

‘FIE KFLDUGGDI, I.EKI 7

mm :§.._9–.i _ ;é “02: yea gmzmmmx
_ MADE THE

“7. = in ifiifi writ petition, the petitioners

am the order dated 15-97»-zczaoe

V gaaaéfi hf tfle learned Principal Civil Judge

4″” “1§rmQa.i;¢ Mala: rejecting the qgplication

fi§§d°§y them undsr Order VI Rule 1? of the

T – . f(.’.’:5:5.Ts of Civil Pzocedura.

Maw: wwux”E’ am» %.AKN.%l’AKA a-um: 4::;:Qi§7Im C2)!”-‘ KARNATAKA HIGH Comm’ OF KARNAEMm MWH QQUR? GE KARNMMKA Mama QGURT 09 WMNMAKA HIGH 1

@

MWM mmm QF KARNATAKA Him»! gmgxw Cw KARNATAKA Mimi Comm 0:3 Kmmmmm Nllfirl (.;UuKI’ GI” mxmmznm mm-I Luum up amxmmnnn mum a

«L “Ema only ground an whiczh the
b&3.m~r has: refused the prayer fer %
to the plain: is that iii’; pri¢p.§§s=§:1V ‘ 3_

araenfiment is allemed theV9n.’atute “:2f

will be changed and thou:_’fh..VV:.V’t:auseV”~of= ac£;o§i
xwaaina the aaur:ev,i “w~j.th_§ ‘ ifill
introduce al1:egVe’t:heJ:__ c.-:3-.~::=:é%,–‘.1’V_~;v fir-éhich is

ir@m:r:11.’ssiblfl’–

*5. I ‘ Lafifizad ccaunsol for

the parAt:;_e’a ‘ counsel for the

Eaaparmagt {£135. his statement of

“._»:$}::__~’g.a=V:’;”‘.:”.’.:”.:.’3’A.”r%.1’*z-.2 théwsmae is taken on recmrd.

_6. 4311 aatabliahed that if the
figure cut the auit is not altered by
%f.«l*V’2raV:V”»-;;:’r:;:1ac=se:c.i aemenmnent even if what is
‘ _4’z-azaight he be changed is the nature of relief

‘fiezxught for by the plaintiff, the maendmant

naught fan: can be panuitted. The n3.y

/%

….. ‘
‘._Va::<s.*.?;.&t£*; ';aL},.~;;Lfi,;:at1an aeekzng amendment of the

mum Manx: ur anamnmnm mum §m;R1' my KAKNATAKA HIGK €91,331 GE KAKNATAKA HIGH CQURT 05 KARNATAKA HEGH comm mvfi mnmmm HIGH I

and scanners of action is not altered,
amandrasnt is pemiasihla atherwisa,
cénly lead to multiplicity of % 1
ma plaintiff, in the

amt he drivan tc: they gzdéalh' of

aztwthmt suit on the same céiafie cf

8. Thmzefaxe, __in and in
the light <3: Eli}:-;~VVV'i'ih.pex Co-art
srefescred scmght for
deserve}; 1 fihe order uncle':
cfzallengé' "deserves tea be'(_ 35:
asiés ~ petition is allowed

L.

:.A.1~z:a.Iv in o.s.No.29;’2c-m

Sd/1-g__
Fudge

mph!-*

I-~