IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE ST" DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.:VTEi\l.UG§§};l,L}3lVI.C3C§'\«'ll'.DAV"-T
WRIT PETITION No.145312615(GM-g_CPC')T. '
BETWEEN:
Sampath Kumar, ,
S/0. late Panduranga N"aic2u_, _ V
Aged about 62 years, *
R/at B-33, Bharath Nagar-,». . V
BEML Nagar Poet, L .
Kolar Gold F_ieT!,,ds;f" . "
, .V .-- :PETITIONER
(By Sri _l§_._VRa"g h'a'xie[1c;lra.,_Ra_0,
AND: D _ ,
1. P.KaAstur'! Bai,.,.\/\a':,{/D,»VC,.i§la«r'astmhan,
D/0. late lPavndu_rar}ga, lslatdu,
Aoed about 59. years,
R;7a CNK Building, E-M road,
T-.RiJb;ertsonpet, """
,..,Kola'r.GDld--._Fields.
*-"S!TZni;~S'a.fojamma,
f W/o. late Panduranga Naldu,
Aged' about 84 years,
R/a 3?" Cross, Prltchard road,
Robve.=.-.r"tsonpet,
' "niglar Gold Fields.
' Kanthamma, W/0. Muniswamy,
' D/o. late Panduranga Naldu,
Aged about 61 years,
R/a Perumal Naidu Compound,
2"" Cross, Robertsonpet,
Kolar Goid Fiekds.
4. Smt. Navaneethamma,
W/0. Muniswamy Naidu,
D/0. fate Panduranga Natdu,
Aged aboui: 64 years, A
R/a Shankranthi Village,
Endaf Post, Vandavasi Taluk',
Aavani District, Tamil Na<:r'u_.f~..,_
5. Smt. P.Shanthamma,
W/0. Krishnamurthy,'~~.,_ , _ ..
D/0. {ate Panduranga Nya.id«u,i-. j.
Aged about 63 years, _ '
R/a Vontumuré Cross, -
Kanbeagi ::o'a"d._.,_I'* g A '
Belgaum. 44 'V '
6. Smt....J.am"u.n'a'@,\/atsaȣa', A
W/o. Rads*ha»kras!s'1na,, * .
D/0:, fate Pa'ndu.ran,ga.,Na.tdLs,
Agedabout 57"'yfears,.._,TA"'»«
R/a Venl_<aAtesh'aWara,T'empEe Compound,
Prj.t_chard*roac!,, Robertson pet,
Kofarse.Goid Fields. ,
,uSré éathyayoarayana,
".j=(ByS..ri T,Srinivasan, Adv. for R7;
"S/Q."-I,ate"Pa'nduranga Naldu,
. *fAged a'«b,oufV'v5'O years,
3 R'/a Rangjammat Compound,
'Pritc.h'a:'d«~"road, Robertsonpet,
Kofarfiokd Fields.
* " :RESPONDENTS
* ‘ _ ‘ –.Sré».Venkatarama Reddy V., Sri Janardhan V. 8: Sri
Jayaprakash N. Advs. for R2 and R5)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
order on I.A.i\lo.9 found at Annexure — E passed.,_ii:yi~the
Learned Additional Civil }udge (Sr.Dn.) a,t_7K’Gi’–‘~.. in
O.S.No.58/01 dated 22.12.2009 and allow this
costs and grant such other relief/s as this i4i.o’n’biieVf’Court
might deem meet, in the facts and »circu.:n’sta.:nc,esi.of,the” 2
C858.
This petition coming on for A’this”d~:iy…ti<1e"
made the following: K gkijeit Respondent ~--- 11.9.01
against the pet_itioner,….a:nd. claiming
declaration _oyer:’V.th’e”:plaint schedule ‘B’
property, possession and for
injunction,_. the ht” defendant, filed written
statementjon the suit. I.A.9 was
filed;by,the.Vp’£ai_Vnt’iff on 4.11.09 under 0 v1 R 17 cpc to
i9.{a) and an alternate prayer (bb). Plaintiff
A””fii*ed_.obiécti’on:si’:to I.A.9 on 27.11.09. The Trial Court has
allowed–__”I.A«.”9 subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-.
J”iTh.i,s writ ‘petition is directed against the said order.
2 Sri K. Raghavendra Rao, learned advocate
“appearing for the petitioner, contended that, I.A.9 was
/
/’
suit has been noticed supra. No doubt, no relief had. been
sought in respect of the ‘A’ schedule property”=.Ev_en
plaintiff * PW-1 stated that she does not
property. The alternate prayer putforth ‘i*s”c’la:i’mi’ngV1/8?l'”
share in both ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule :p4rop’erti’es’;»._’ l V
7. The issues framedflpartlcuiarly.ViAssues”?”‘a’nd 9i”?
would reveal that some of Vgt.he:A””gd.efenda.nts’~are~:§claimin9
I/82:1 and 1/561 ghare “i’:;’:”?i1§.géaliirschledilihileproperty. The
parties are chviléclreri The Trial
Court has. decide the real
questioiriso.fTc’o”ntbroarrersygAl?-etyvegeni the parties, the prayer in
I.A.9 and the same would not
change eitlliear the nat;.lre…uof the suit or the cause of action
«=,_anclfirvouyld__avold’«m1…ri«tiplicity of proceedings. Keeping in
view–..gt’h_e”~lifactthat the parties are the children of
P3ndurangéj’j_ and also the fact that some of the
defend.av’nts.Vhave also claimed 1/8″‘ and 1/5″‘ share in the
i.::r.’A’:’ ‘ls’c.hed’ule property, it cannot be held that the character
‘ off the suit changes or the cause of action which has led to
/.’
K
the filing of the suit. The amendment has only avoided the
filing of separate suits for partition and thus the _p.ra’-yer.,_in
I.A.9 has only avoided the multiplicity of
between the pa rtles.
8. Since trial has comm’elnc:éd}’l pro-v_is::»,V to”
under 0 6 CPC is attracted..,:Vy:”‘~Howeye.r, ‘thle.:a’e§é’n’drnent””
could be allowed if it i;s…shovyin—-tha.t’despite’dvuediligence,
the claim could not hail/eé’_.b’e’en’0.r is required to
decide the re.a4l.::’contro’yerS’y; tzhelllparties and to
avoid in view the real
contro:vers’y inter–se claim made
by sortie ..–for partition and allotment of
separate shares,.VtheA’TriaFVCourt has rightly exercised the
y_¢sted’V’in””it’Vand has permitted the amendment
V”:y_’_ofVé”_plairit_:V.isle;”incorporation of additional pleading and
allterriate The reasoning and approach of the trial
‘<._court isirs conformity with the decisions reported in (2007)
A 602 and (2006) 4 SCC 385. Since the defendants
have been compensated by cost for the delay caused in
be
//'
/"