AH};
IN THE HIGH CQIJRT 01? KARr¢A}fA1;.é. AT'133ANé2:J}€;Rf3.V
DATED THES THE 13th DAY oia4Nc§v3%sa8E'R-zgitissk
Bgmmf, ._
THE I~§ON'BLE MR. .1us9i*i»:f§rs: .5 s 3G9A§;NA'f
WRIT PETITIONA..;.§§}. 4%$o:3,=V:Au~oa"{G%M ape)
BETWEEN: V H
SRIHCVENKOB
3/0 LATE CHINMI} me ~ 4 _ L 4- .
AGED ABOU'1?'62.Y"EA"RS.. .
R/AT N0 5, 01,1.) '1~;A:*:if1aIA No-957 ~
355:3, NEVWMKATHA N(§r.:4$4'7,. RAMAKRESHNA
ROAD, SR! M v1S%zfE$va.VRA¥¥A.v_E.¥'Pr4
HOSKOTE 562114 ' = '-
v '-- ' . PETTFIONER
(By Sri ; av. LSHAVSHI '.a<UMA ré', ADV. FOR
M1/§§_§INQO Lgcmggn 3
' 'am' 5;. fiARA¥Ar:}¢;i'?éa
sic: BYRAPPA---. Z
AGE?) ABOUT 45' YEARS
V ' _R/A':*''rA1s:3:)uLA',7cRoss
" " L «-- HCSKQTE;"'562l 14
'M VESVESAWRAYYA EXTENSION
RESPONDENT
V % -I.’~:sA§-E Sri: JAGADIE-EH D HIREMATH, ADV.)
TI~§iS WRIT PE’TI’i’iON IS FILEE) UNDER ARTICLES 226 85
n u £227 OF’ THE CONSTYFUTION OF INEIA, Wi’§”‘H A PRAYER’ T0;
QUASH THE §MF’UGNED GRDER DT. 23.53.2008 §N §.A,NO.’.7 IN
J:
Q’:
€3S..N€3.624/2005 PENDING on THE FILE OF ‘1ii,’1e%?”‘ADm1.;.,
CIVIL JUDGE {SENIOR I}¥V}S!0N} BA«N_G;Al,(;}EE” a_RUR’AL
DISTRICT, AT BANGALORE AT ANNEX1}3RE::A. A.
This Writ Fetition coming 1:n”‘ror Pzeiimgnapg vs’ ”
group, this day, the Court made t¥1£!f9_l.lt:tav’ing : ~
Q 2 %
The petitiomar _.~.:_t} 1’1cA- f’~ _(f1etE:r.3dant in
0.S.No.624/05.1.. the respondent
herein decree of specific
pcfibxmafitze da:ea”%5.7.2oo4. In the said
suit, ” wxitten stat-cmcnt putting
forth his the suit.
% 13. ‘.¥.11v :i;i:¢_ pending suit, the defendant has filed
Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking
V .amefi&’mefif “(if the written statcmextt by introducing
(1:1) and (c). The plaintiff oppofl the said
The trial Court by its ardczr dafi 23.2.2008 has
ditsfiztissed the said appiicafien which was registered as IA-
‘ “V11.
1!,
3. On hearing the learned .4 ”
parties, I have perused the writ
impuwed in this petition.
4. On perusal of the trial
Court has mainly zjejectesi ground that
the said iihaal belatedly after
commanctcmiétttt this regard, the trial
Court _v was cited by the
learnccl At the same time, it is
ra0flced_ that the ‘ttxo-ugh had noticed the judgment
‘~ pf t11§§’3″H(;tt’i3l€¢ reizied on by the defiendant in
“‘–..Ath::’¢as¢’afmxttjav SINGH vs. MANOHAR SINGH (AIR 2005
Sc: .2’332)t ‘hag fhbught it fit to state that the wine is not
fappiic,xaE)Eto.Vthc case without disctlssing the same.
N On the other hand, the perusal cf the zeasonings
” in the saiacl judgment by the Honflnlc Supreme
Court would indicate; that the ultimate matter 1501’
ii
conaiieration by the Court while “‘
application is the Ieasan to be iénojte eif
allowed even at the Later siege aitex ‘the
comrmeneed. Keeping these tlte eta-attum of
amendment sought in H perused
keeping in View the pmvigg 6 Rule 17 of
CPC, though it” the defendant
that certain tdtbc incorporated are
subseqt;eiitVveve1§vts,V’& ‘V proposed amendment
would ieciieete the fact with regani to the
Ct1iIf£SiI’vll_(;f’:i(3I1A”]L:’»’.lfV.V taptpmrperty and the kzsan secured,
“‘~.tj;e he锑safight to state with regalti to the
the son of the plajntifi’. Therefoze, in a
ma.ttei’A0f firiature, if the same is perused, the facts
e \.i;1dic:atezi Vpaxa 1I(a) and 11(1)) are in fact. contentions
««..woeid magmfy the contentions which are aheady
in the written statement. But only addition is with
” tn the nature of dischalge of loan and even though
.4 t the same is, not indicated in the afidavit, the fact which has
L
‘1:
amendment application and some hardship has _
to the plaintiff in this regard, the p}aintif1″ wguLd :aa§éIijtaAbg}: ”
compensated in terms of costs. In the 7 .’
the View that the defendant would {Sf L.
Rs.2,500/~ ts) the plaintifi’ the m%% The
payment of costs is :31 out the
amendment A } T» V n b
With the ‘éfigfirve dimcfions, the
petition K3… ‘afiiio costs.
55/1?
Tudgé