Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Smt Alamma vs Ankashetty on 16 December, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT E3ANGALORE_~=___

DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010':'~f,:"SITY

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENU'G«OPAE'I1A'¢'OI5f4D.}5.  

WRIT PETITION NO.39775/2E5'1'Oi'.f3lV1:--C'PCjA'    

BETWEEN:

SMT. ALAMMA W/O MADASETTY 
AGE: 40 YEARS R/O BYADAML_JD._Lu  V I ._  
DODDAMOLE POST, HARADAN'AHALLI jIIO5L':{[   _

TALUK & DIST. CHAMARAIANAGARV.  j'  "..'.::R.E=TITIONER

(BY SRI S.G. :<uL_I<A:RIgII':iADv;j_;_Ia:IA 

AND:

1.

ANKASHETW S/O ¥<EMPAN'KAS«ETTY

AGE: 45 YEARS R/O BYADAMUDLU
DODDAMOLE POST; HARA.DAI\:AHALLI HOBLI
TALUK & DIST..cHAM'ARA3ANAGAR.

2: ‘vMA’HEVS}IAI .I$/I’AIDASET”1″Y
Ac3E’:< 40 YEARS R/O.._BY,ADAMUDLU

DODDAIYI'O.L_E 'ROST, +jA'RADANAHALLI HOBLI
TALUK 8»DIST._cHAMARAJANAGAR.

_ .._E3«.,..RA:}_AMMA’~D/O MADASETTY
AGE: .40 YEARS R/O BYADAMUDLU
“DO.DDAfV}O£;’E POST, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI
“fT,TP.LUK”& DIST. CHAMARAJANAGAR.

4. SRI VENKATARANGA NAIKA
S/O RANOA NAIKA AGE: 55 YEARS
R/O EST” WARD, BASAVESHWARA EXTENSION,

AT & DIST. CHAMARAJANAGAR. :RESRoN~D’E§~A:oT_§:.-.:Ci .

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER.ARTICLES-»226’AND’;
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYINC3 TO QUASH-II.’THIE.
ORDER ON I.A.12 DATED 23.11.10 VIDE ANNEXURE~E_PASSED*._
av THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (IR. DN-) & JMFC, ‘CHAMfiiF2’AJ_ANA_i3AR

IN O.S.NO.2/O5 AND DISMISS I_A.13\\f.I_,,,..V_%

THIS PETITION COMING ON ;EORfPR’ELIMINARYHEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE __THE EOL_LO’\Ar_INVVG-:.+

IO_._’P<D Ea

When the Staa3'e::«'otVVar'<_IDments ie, after
Compietion of_t.r.i_ai_,""'t.h_:'e under 0 6 R 17 CPC
to incorporate pr'opoS'ueri:':-..a:ri1e'nCItITient" in the written statement.
Finding the appilitaétion of merit, the Triai Court has
paS_sed an_§{oVrd.er of' The said order has been

qtiestionediii in 'firs; .vi}re.t petition.

2.”,__”VHear;:i”:’t.tie learned Counsel for the petitioner and

the v\:rit’i-petition papers.

‘Indisputediy, the proviso to R 17 of O 6 CPC is

The affidavit in support of tiie application does not

ASEL/,,.z
/3 ,

r

show any diligence much less due diligence on the parto–f_ the

petitioner in seeking the amendment at the belated stage’

suit. Since the proviso restricts the power of the C-oijrt,

the amendment, in the absence of duevdilig-ence oniithe oart~ oi?’

the applicant, the Trial Court is justified ihp:a_ssing’t’h,’e–~impL}g’ri~ed’~._

order.

4. Even otherwise, the p,rob.o’:sed~-.,,’amendment when
pensed, woukiindmauathac the ghee wag wen wmhwithe
knowledge of petitiong’r’,_whe’nV’ was filed
and the same hav_ing»vnot,,bfee’n_:o,lea.dVe’d_ otherwise being
unnecessary to..d,e”Ci~d’_:e controversy between
the parties, fedo. ijona fide on the part of the

peuuonerinrmng;¢a;2;i*i

a.,r-esult, the”””w’rit petition fails and shall stand
disnfissed£”‘–_=fl!e”

Sflf 5;”

3336?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.166 seconds.