Sri K Vasudeva vs Smt C Anusuya on 28 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 28*" Day Of January 2010
BEFORE  , .. ,
'me HON'8LE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALMATEE'  
WRIT PETITION NO.13751/2007 (Gr---r>'c.R'¢:;.. » 

BETWEEN:

SRI :< VASUOEVA
S/O KRISHNA REOOY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS  
R/AT NO 588, 23 'A'_MAIN..*"" --. 
21 SECTOR, HSR LA.YO--UT  ' *
BANGALORE -» 560 034-   ~ _
H "  , V'  P-ETITIONER
{'E3y__ EROO Legai: InC~,...i--'-Ldvocatéj

SMT C: AN.USU'YA. .   

W/O LATE'---r:1'RANORASH-Es<AR

AGED -A BOUT  YEARS 

R/AT NO'S.5,/.2,"MUTT; 'REOOY LAYOUT
EEROSS', NEAVRET,cA.,RREN"T_ER NANJAPPA
BUILOIr\;O, MAR.U~THmAGAR
BANGA_LO.RE ~._ 560' 053

» ' SR1 J H ANV.A'R--D.%fiE_AN&.
'S,;<v-~.I.ADDI'TIoNAL'._CI»I"'i<uRE~e.  -   

THIS WRIT PETITION 'iCOM;.NGfO_N HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE TH'E..FoLLowING':   ; ~ 

The V:'l\:lAC)iV"/;f9V78/1996 for specific
 was set down for
arguments,AI.A.N'o.iO'A:~'A'oAn'd'e'r"'brder 6 Ruie 17 read with

Secticgn"1i.51 ot"*C_VPC" was nwade by the petitioner seeking

 'a'r":*t.ej'ndn'Ient:Vi:Of,_._the plaint. It was pteaded that Only on the

filed by the defendant, the appiication

My _ Seekirig an arnendment was warranted. The triai Court by

:_tt*...eVLIiumpt:-glned order rejected the Said application on the

 that the application is belated and there are no

  -valid reasons to explain the delay.

2. Sri.Shashi Kumar, learned Counsei for the

petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law

VA"



3

and is liable to be set aside. He submits that the relief

sought for in the application for amendment is one for.___an

alternate prayer of partition and separate pOSSeSSEVOfr1Vi.§"k:r§::b.".,

support his case, reliance is placed on th-re."deci'sior1'_'* "

reported in (1982) 1 sec 525-s.(4B:rb:,i.l"i:a§:"'airs. l'

M/s.Hazari La! Kishori La! and ofirer*s)l'.'l

3. Counsels for the reszp'o.ndeVnts"'hat/e": remained

absent

4. On he_ar:n:g'---theiglearned..:c'o:iJ_n_sel  the petitioner,
Fm of the  petition requires to be
allowedif/or-.theVf'oll'oyyin_g"r.ea'so'ns;

The t'ri_al Cour_t""i=ejec't.ed the application purely on the

 ground uof~delay'." considering the provisions of Order 6

Rui'e__17_:'  the trial Court has reasoned that the

app"i.i.ciatVio,{«'..j,,.ha~s"".been filed belatedly and could not be

-V ente§*tainVed'."f Gn this sole ground, the application was

'V V' ",'i»rejected 

5. Sn a reading of Section 22 of the Specific Relief
Act, it would disclose that the relief of possession and

partition or otherwise could also be granted by the Court

MAW



4

even though the same has not been claimed, provided the

Court aliows him to amend the piaint and permit him.__ to

inciude such relief. The purport of Section 22 
Specific Relief Act has been expiained in para-Af21V.o:f
judgment referred to above. IVt*"'w-a.s the

Drovisions of Section 22 should 

for the sole purpose of avoidinQ--..rnu_itipiAi'city of_p-roceeo'~i~rr'§;s,
which would occur by vrejzection-~«~of"L_:-su"c.h_ a.pie»a,. ,.}In the
instant case, what is soug'h_trforV to add
the prayer for  'aiternate. The
provisions of  fvvithffffregard to filing of

the amendiment'  -applicable to such

applications being_'fii!edV';' _

"iF"ori..A'-rw.thec. aforesaid reasons, the order dated

16.is..2oo':z"rrpiaéseid' .o:ii;,.1.A.No.s is set aside. }j.A.No.6 fiied

§T1V*

 the piaintiff.Sis'?-aiifiowed subject to payment' of cost in a
 Rs.'i,,Q0O/~ to the defendants--respondents by the

hearing.

Rule made absoiute.

Sd/~
JUDGE