_..1._ III' THE HIGH COURT OF' IKARKATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TI-I13 T33 15'' DAY OF' OCTOBER 2008 um Hozrnm 1uR..ms11c1: 3.3. 9A1*_1;;~%-- I " WRIT PETITION No.1g§46 or g%((_gmn?: gjcP_c1x ' if J' , §.;:;lE....'1'..'.'..7|!'r...;;...§..!.!..'.«-'. 3,. Smt.I3o€1dakka., Aged about 76 years, BEFORE W/0. Sri Kempaiah, R/at No.2"?.;' Dcvara Jcevanahalh, Bangalore North Talukf. '_ Smt.Naga.ma3.a @ Nagarathnamzna, V Aged about '?'f!!»3*i'c North Taluk. S!el£;Amaravathi, ~ about 68 years, .. __}Z}[o.Smt.Mu11iyamrna, R / at Nagashaettyhalli, Bangalore North Taluk. (By SrLV.Vishwan3.th, Adv.) P!!'."!'I'H0!lE% Am): 811' Muniswaxnappa, Aged about 55 years, S f o.Sri Mzmimamppa, R] at Byalakcre, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. .. This Writ Petition is filed may ..22;3 5522.. " Constitution of India praying to ort'€'c1; 04.09.2093
passed by the 1car;a¢a…,1_I Addy ciyi:..,1u;:ge ..(Jr.I3n.},. ”
Bangalore Rural Eistrict, in ()’;S..:N’o’.58 3./ 1998 on
I.A.No.11 virie filcciiby’: {mder Order
VI Rule 17 read with Sectidn 1SI.,5f»’th_€_{ Lame of Civil Procedure,
1908, praying fOI”A’}’3(i2I’II1i;°5:§iU12::”‘t()v “written statement
filed by them.
hearing this day,
the _ —
01. are. cigafieiiging the order dated 04.09.2008
V’ «passééo;r..:I.A.ANo.i’I’ ‘mic-ictizlg the prayer made by them seeidng
V’ yvzitten. state ment.
02.? are -the defendants before the Court below. An
g;pp1ic’9.ii(;;n;_ fled in I.A.No.1}. by them seelcging amendment
{if statement to incorporate additional paragaphs.
Iiéztme of the proposed amendment as can be seen from
*.:Afinexure-C is that as the defendants needed some fimds to
%/
.. 3 ._
meet their family necessities they borrowed loan of Rs.42,00()/~
fiom one Muniyappa and the said Muniyappa obtained a
document from defendants by way of security
it will be recorded as an agreement of sale and
said amount the document would .be__ heme» _
further contended that the defefidantfi ~ iind .
amount to Muniyappa, howeire’t-;-.__theV”
return the document which sttgxeement of
sale contending that was gven to the
plainfifli It is fixrther amendment that
the plaintifi” has erased the
name ‘and~.got his own name and has
thus to Show that agreement of sale
was executed th:e’v.de’fe’n(1e.nts in favour of the plaintflf.
~03. a;opfic.d1ii6I1″‘is rejected by the Court below on the
“p1ainfifi’ had been already cross-examined on
the counsel for the defendants and thereafter two
‘v.yvit11eesevé*;_oix behaif of the plaintiff filed their amdavit and
A Cftltefeafter the 1” defendant {fled his afidavit evidence on
‘ 2AS;.o’71.20o7 which shcrwed that the case had made considerable
dd gfmgmss and it was at the {lag end of completion of evidence and
at that stage the application was filed seeking amendment. The
%/
__ 4 _
Court below has further found that two fears after the cross-
examination of the plaintiff, the defendants had comegj1jp.WitIa
such an application which disclosed that they were
to protract the litigation.
()4. I have heard the learned theieand
perused the materials on record, The .p’reposed”V–d~a_.rnendi§;1ent ‘is’
rejected mainly on the g1x3und°” d_eIa3,?” of the
defendants in making out by
the Court below suit had and the
evidence was staJ§gTe’–:.”of.___ectnp1efion when the
application defendants I cannot be permitted to
delay suit V -proceedings by resorting to such
method. not ermr of jurisdiction or error
appawgt on the of the record so as to Warrant interference
fine i>at$sed by the Court below.
that the defendants had taken up a
V _ contenfien the suit document namely the agreement of sale
._tvase_.eone*ected and created. It is open to them to adduce
detfideiiee in this xegard. The proposed amendment which is
cannot cause serious prejudice to the interest of the
defendants as they are entitled to lead evidence in support of
6%.
_ 5 ..
the contention that the agreement of sale was created and
concocted. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
PKS