":L."(DYL'S~«R1IRSHAD AHMED, ADV.)
AND:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO;REi
DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF OCTODER,
BEFORE ;f,L*'f
THE HON'BL.E MR. 3uST1cE A.N.VE.N£JGOPA'LAQGOWEEAV
WRIT PETITION i\EO.33606}*':2«0ij'0
BETWEEN:
SMT. FARE-EANA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS _
W/O. SR1 SYED NAZIM ., *
FORIVEERLY R/A No.22 V --
OLD NO.8, E. NO.5TH~S.TR.EET _ «V ,
BROADWMROAD ;{H.§uL AZEEZ
ACfE'D,A"BOUT 50 YEARS.
SFEEMOHAMMED SIBGATH ULLA
S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ
H.-'AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
SRI MOHAMMED RIZWAN ULLA
S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
SR1 MOHAMMED SAIF ULLA
H. 93
S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
SRI MOHAMMED RAHMATH ULLA
S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
SRI MOHAMMED NASRULLA
S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
SL. NOS. 2 To 8 ARE
R/A No.4, C.NO.5TH STREE'r,_ *
CHANDNI CHOWK ROAD CR.O_S:S.T,_
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 O51». *
SMT MEHRL!NNISAy" .
W/O SHA.E!T<"I_S'}'4AIL Z.
AGED AB.OuTE'T53 YE'ARi3, .
REP. BY H_E.R"GR'A H'OjLDER_
SR1.RO.SHi.AN;VzAMEE.R'~T) .,
S/.0 SHAv:T{'TS;'T~1A'1L.:
AGED 'ABOUT 38 wYEA_RSOU'AS1H / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.9.2010 ANNEXURE--
* , ' FPASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE PASSED IN O.A. NO.391/1997 IN RESPECT
_OI= I.A. No.22 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
SL. NO. 933 TO 9c ARE
R/A No.5, P.K.LANE,
COTTON PET,
BANGALORE--560 053.
9d SMT MEHER
W/O MOHAMMED INAYATH >-
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, '
NO.23, 3RD CROSS,
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE; _
9e SMT SHAMSHIYA
W/O D H KHALANDER
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ,
R/A ASIF MANZIL, 4--TI?I CROSS,
GANGOTHRI ROAD,
TUMKUR ,, ,»-.<'-
9r SMT
AGED .ABIOUT*35.vEIAR--S,
R/A RE_N"E5S_--ET SEHOVOLROAD,
9g SMT'S.HAEsEE'I.I_ TAJ I' ,
, W/O SAT? DAR. PASI.-IA
,_%_AGED ABOIJT28 YEARS,
"R,~:f_A, HAYATH M'AI"\iZIE.,
NEXT TOMADARI SHADE MAHAL,
"_TU~1\fiK'.J"P...
RESPONDENTS
A TRIS VWRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
ORDER
15′ respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.39.J.]’iV9’$r2;~
the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for partitio’n__a”n.d. ‘s{e’paiate–4’l
possession. The petitioner is the 9″ d:e’f’e..ndanr
The suit having been contested, issu’es’having:,iieen”raised,V,
trial has taken place and the at th’e.Vs’tag?e ofghlearing
of arguments on mair}”;~~V.y_ filed” ICVA No.22
under Order 6 V Rule the written
statement and torirricortporate pleading after
para 8, as €para”‘_,8″(Va)’– i.e’;{.’jV»rs/vit-h.’:re’ga’rd to the transactions
between herse|Vf*ajnd’i r’e’sp_o’i1de’nts No.9(a) to (g), namely
the events..l4eladin’g_ execution and registration of a
con_filfrrivaltion d’e”e-d._d_ated 19.06.2010. The prayer in the
»aVpp!icatVi_vo’n ‘hiaving been opposed by the plaintiff by filing
Vgabliections dated 22.09.2010, the trial court
upon’ ycovnsidleration, having found the application to be
‘:f~.dAevo.iyd merit, has rejected the same with costs. Feeling
* aggriieved, the 9″” defendant has filed this writ petition.
L
//,,./’
,– 5
6
2. Mr.K.Irshad Ahmed, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner contended that, the trial
considered I.A No.22 in the correct perspect’i:1,e’ai.hd”
impugned order, in the facts
case, is irrational & iilegal and hence,ilnterferehce’ is c’all’edV’=,
3. Indisputab.lQ,~…’the?i”pVe’tvi:tjion’er_ hadV”‘ap”proached
this court earlier with jVthe._,Vt;§’,g,~,n’saction between
her and respondents to execution of
confirmation’ The said writ
petitionvvlflwas order dated 23.08.2010. The
petitioner hlaxiiingiiriotil’-been able to succeed directly, has
.'”filed—-N”o…,22 toflwoibtain the relief prayed earlier and
.._nVeg.ati~<.z:é"ll.,%.indviilrectly i.e., by seeking the amendment
prop_ose_d I.A No.22.
The alleged transaction between the
A petitioner/defendant No.9 and the respondent Nos.9(a) to
.,_(.g)/L.Rs of defendant No.8 i.e., 8(a) to (g), having taken
it place during the pendency of the proceedings, that too at
L»
/R
the fag end of the proceedings of the suit, the same is
unnecessary for deciding the reai question in cont_rove’r’sxy..g
between the parties. The proviso appended__to~–.:Ru1iAe’~ of»:
Order 6 cpc is attracted and in vievv Vo:r%’t::eb’.tri+as–
having commenced as on theudate I’;A”I\i.o.22v~J.a.sifiiedfj the’*a
first limb of the proviso restrict’;*~:.,V:ti*.e povver”of.V-Ztheiicourt to
aiiow the amendmentjof thewpiieadingg. Tvheflxproposed
amendment being unnecessarv fora” the real
question in co;’itr’:tv?ers\/;i._betw’een~ the”pa_r.ties, the triai court
is justif;,et1_in”‘tej’e;§;;;A_ng
‘HVowev’er;»_iit’ii~e:A”‘tri~ai court was not justified in
imposing the cost…’ofA”Rsé.”i,00O/–. The appiicant bonafide
‘iV.”–beli’ev’in5g:th’a.t, thevconvfirmation deed noticed supra shouid
notice of the triai court by piacing the
same o’n.’re:coiVrd, has filed I.A No.22. The same being
7-‘~.__”-unnecessary, ought to have been rejected and the levy of
V’ the circumstances, does not appear to be
_,Va_ppropriate. KS:/,
—-.
6. The impugned order, except to the extentypof
imposition of cost, does not suffer from any
impropriety. In the facts and circumstance5,’V:’t;.t.Vth’§:
the rejection of LA No.22 is neither
No ground to entertain the wVrit_4’petition’.*..A. . V’ K it
In the result, the
However, it is made clear. tha§it,M,t,hl’e:«._peti–t,ioner”éhall not be
liable to pay cost impVQ_5:’¢AdV court, in the
impugned
Sd/-~
Judge