High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Kari Sankamma vs Sri D Annaiah on 3 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Kari Sankamma vs Sri D Annaiah on 3 October, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
.. 1 ..
IN THE HIGH OOURT OF' !{ARHA"1'A.K.A AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 33" DAY OF OCTOBER %08
BEFORE

mm Horrsw MEJUBTICE 3.3. Pgm-'f 'f ~ 

wan' PETITION No. 97      '

1.

Smt. Kari Sankaxnma,
W/0 Basappa,
Aged 75 years
Residing at No.315,
Hanumantha Nagara,
Bangalore. ‘

Repmsézgted fay GPA

2.
W/,0
Aged about -. ‘
Residing at ‘ . ‘ V.

8*
}3~an.ga}ore -” 027′. pmrmonmns

_ 1. <D'.'An""'na;a' 1:,

Sin H; Dasappa, Major,

.. , Rcsitijng at No.48,

_ '}:'!' Main Row, Sud ,
" -Ghamundcshwaxi Sweet Stall,

Bangalore — 560 027.

Represented by GPA Holder.

2. Sri. Kantha Raju,

S/0 Late Putta Muniyappa,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at

…..2….

Mixza Read, Anekla Town,
Bangalore District. RESPOIDEWTS

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 22’i’–._of the
Constitution of india praying to quash the order the
XI Addl. City Civil Judge, CCH-8, Bangalore: gity 0.3.
No.2276f20{)3 on 28.06.2008 vide Anncxure-E
LA. No.4 filed under Ondezr 6 Re}: 17 read 15».1..’_’of’»
CFC, for amendment of the Written statement by the
Pfititioner herein. ‘ .. AV

This Petition comm” g on for A’ ‘T
the Court made thefolk)w1’ng:–_> . Av ‘E *

o R nieiig e

01. Petitioners are
rejecting their request for fivfifien statement

02. The application IA no.4
filed by it-he the defendants before the court

below under._ 17′ read with Section 151 CPC

utd additional paragraphs in the Writiaen

med by them. The suit o.s. M22761 2003 is

. the agreement of sale. Petitioners herein have
statement on The evidence in the
commenced during June 2007. PW~1 has led his
evfuiience marking the documents Exs.P–1 to P-16. He was

” gfissmxamined in part on At the instance of the

herein seek1n’ g specific

.. 3 ..

petitioners, the cmse-examination was deferred. Thexeafter the
matter was adjourned to 23.07.2007. On that day, again 2″‘
defendant and her counsei Weze absent and hence the was

adjourned to 22.08.2007. Counsel for the defendoet’:

memo of retimment, but as notice of retirement not’Vgxi’v§:’.n V’

the defendant by the }ea;rned ‘

rejected by the court below.

03. The defendant did not to PW-1V’

despite suficient time in In
such cimumstances, was taken as

nil and PW-1 meant: plaintiff has got

PWS-2, 3 & 4. The plainfifl
closed “matter was adjourned for the

evidence. gf defenoaots. At this stage, the present

Rule 17 came to be filed seeking

_«OfVthe’tjWritten statement.

V “Rs seen. from the proposed amendment, 203

H u A’4″‘§3.ef€:nr,lont”intends to incorporate oertam assertions stating’ that

Videxitity of the property as described in the suit schedule is

Vt ‘W1-*ot1g and that the ciescription of the suit schedule pmperty in

” “the suit schedule is not oorxect. The defendant also intends to

k

.. 4 ..

take up a contention that the pIaint:ifi’ was running a chit fund

businesa and in that connection the plailxtift’ head the

siflture of the 21″‘ defendant on the blank stamp

with the property documents as security in

chit fund business with the 2″‘ deferefieet’

fund came to be closed, that the (iefeiident

over the blank stamp papers, 1:ni1;. Ti;i1e fo’ hand’

over the same on one p1’e§sex_t or the – . 2
OS. The court below on the
gonad that there; in seeking the

amendment sought for was not

pa .sih1e: :aS

06. I have for the petitioners and

” o.I1_ yecoxti.

07:’ herein above make it very clear that

_ the plaintiffs was closed, the 2″‘ defendant

-. :11′?-»COI13.C tip: this application see-ldng to introduce a new

4:~–‘_V ‘dcIefice “épntending that the document relied upon by the

V. was one for which the signature of the 2″-” defendant

taken 01). blank stamp papers along with certain property

documents as a security measure in connection with chit fund

%

.. 5 ..

busincss caxrricd on by the pIaintifl’ with the 2″‘ defendant

Such a defence cannot be pczmittcd to be raised at such a

belated stage. The court below was right and justified in

declining the mquest made. Hence, I dc not find

or error of jurisdiction in the older passed by

As already adverted to herein above,

filed as back as on 26.06.2004 and

and his Witnesses was ‘fsuchc’

circumstances, it was net for thc ‘dcfciidants to

come forward with such :.1_£1 tbc circumstances,

_ sd/..

pxs      Judge