Sri Sai Prabhu Kaza vs Mrs Kullamandiri M Shukla on 8 November, 2010

(BY SRI__ O CANS_"A.I§ HARA ,;.AOv.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA_r;§"GA«I.'O--PR_E _

DATED THIS THE 8"' DAY OF}\lOVEM*I5'E?5?--:§::j2:CJ'lV{3  '_:"  

BEI=ORE1__ ,   Q
THE HON'BL.E MR. JUSTICE A'.:"IJ.__..VVEANLE§OPALA'V"{§:§IVIIpé; N
WRIT PETITION NO.3'i'O'O.§_9,r2VVo1d 
BETWEEN:   _    

SRISAIPRABHU KAZA  _
S/O MALLESHwAR'A,__RAO"KA2:A., _ , V 
AGED ABOUT 5I8&':EA'RS :  
R/AT  ~  __   
AVENUE AP;ART_M*E,N'TS,.  '

15, OONHI,CAvI_.IEO1'P,NIA,CA-,9'c2--Q, U,§3.A.

REPRESENTEDKBY HIS GvPA~,H'OLO<E,R'-...._ -- I
SRE BHIMESHWARA RAO KA;':-A,   , '
S/O LATE r<.v.vENI~_<ATAORI,  _  
AGED ABOUT 55 vEA..RS,. _ I

R/AT NO.322,--11T" CRO.SS',~ *
MAHALAKSHEII LAYOUT, "  
BA-NGAL.OR'E---- --' 550 08.6.

 PETITIONER

'  i<Ui.._L.£.\IV|AI\1DIRI M SHUKLA

 ' ,.A,G'EO---MAJOR, R/AT NO.828,
 'w_E'S.T,_I8TH STREET, SAN PEDRO,
 fij-CALIFORNIA,
  _C AF90731, U.S.A.
 '#A.A.A.A. NOTARY PLUS,
_=123o, S.GAFE STREET,
SAN PEDRO, CA 90731,
U.S.A.



SR1 v M SARANGAPANI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

S/O K M MUNISWAMY

R/AT NO.8, SANGAM ROAD,  -
BANGALORE 560 042.  
PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.23,'=, :
IMPERIAL COURT, NO.33,, '
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, ' '
BANGALORE 560 052.

SRI K V PRABHAKJ-RR

S/O LATE K.\/ENKATARAMANA'SH_A.STR§r

R/AT NO.80, S V COLONY,-.9 
SAN3AYANAGARA,  , A ..
BANGALORE 560 $394. ' '~ 

M RS _S'HI*REL?[\|.';'HL3S_S.AIN. .
AGED ABOUT SB YEARS '  =
W/O M'+'{_Y.F%.L,Iv_SVSX\,_IN.._ " "

MR  * '
AGED_ ABOUT. 35 3vE_ARS 
S/O._Y. HUSSAIN. ,_  '

, -- RESRO'NDEN'TS 41'AND 5 ARE
 R/AT NO.201«,...F.QRDHAM HOUSE,

HARRIS ROAD, BENSON TOWN,

  BA'PéGA_LOP_\E 566 045.

  M'R"'M»OH~A'M"MED IMDADULLAH

AGEDSABOUT 35 YEARS

 S;-(O MOHAMMED SHAKARULLAH.

MRS AMIRA SULTANA

A  AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
 W/O MR. MOHAMMED IMDADULLAH,

RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE

R/AT NO.6/26, FESHERMAN STREET,
ST.THOMAS MOUNT,

CHENNAI 600 016.



10

11

 12_~5

MR HAFIZ HAFEEZUR RAHMAN
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O MR MOHAMED RAHMAN.

MRS TAHIRA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS   -
W/O HAFIZ HAFEEZUR RAHMAN

RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 ARE ,  . _
R/AT NO.21/44, INDIAN'BA":'J_K STREET,._   
COMER BAD,   "  -- 

VELLORE DISTRICT -- 635 s,O'8..(r.--N_.). 

M/S ALIED TELESY~N:f'_ ._   
NO.178,GROuND FLOv_OR_.'-.5'  
18TH '5' CROSS, HA.I.._2_N--P 'A' STAGE,  "
BANGALORE    
REPTD. av ITS' PROPRIE"TOR',i_M'ANA~GER.

M/SSIé\F['E.RAC*FIVE_,'=.,A" _
A\/ENUES,'N--O_.'1~78,«,3_sr__;LO-OR,
18TH E CROS.S~,. H'A[._22NLI~ 'A' STAGE,
BAN.GAL..ORE. " '  '

RE PTO, BY ITS PRO PRiETOR/ MANAGER.

 M/"S AVI3AR"Z«M..A.GINATIVE SOLUTIONS,

N'O';17'8, 2ND FLOOR,
18TH "B'"C'._ROSS, HAL 2ND 'A' STAGE,

  F~B.A5'1.G?'.LORiE,
' REP._"_B__Y'I;T'S PROPRIETOR/ MANAGER.

13

WS SYNTTEL
COT:\'SIDER IT. DONE,
NO'.178, 3RD FLOOR,

A VS"'~«.18TH '3' CROSS, HAL 2ND 'A' STAGE,

VBANGALORE

REPTD. BY ITS PROPRIETOR/MANAGER.
 RESPOADENTS

 "  (BY M/S GUNASHEKAR & ASSOCIATES, FOR R1;

SRI G.PAPI REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
SR1 B.S. SATYANAND, ADV. FOR R3,'



M/S. P.H.lVEOHAMMED & ASSOCIATES AND    
SRI SHAKEEL ABDUL RAHIMAN, ADV. FOR R4 TO  .

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER_'_A~--RTI'C.LE.S 
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PR_AYIN'G.fTO"QUASH *

THE IMPUGNED ORDER {DATED .. ~._12'.8..__2o_IQ  IN
O.S.NO.:l.1340/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE - l§l'O£\l IA.,NO.:I2,' PA-.SSI1E_D

BY THE 17TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, 'BANGALC'3RU'v [CCH~'I..5]';,
DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT" TO CONSIDERATIQN,OE: THE_*

APPLICATION OF THE PETITION..ERv.T{IA.No..I2}_TjO BE TAKE ON
RECORD BY PERMITTING THE PETITIONERT-OR AMENDEMENT
OF THE PLAINT. --  -.    

THIS PETITION CO'i«'iI_NG"ONVEORTTTPRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, _T}_-lE COURT ivTA.DE~.tiji+_iE FOLLOWING:

 O  o"E"Rtrn I 

Pla'ir%ti.ff;»i'n.;G:.;.S.:{iV34l3/2U'C5"'pending on the file of the
City Ciyii' 4'_C0II:rt',T:"-Sai2.GLVal.o':re_', has filed this writ petition,

aggrievedihyvthe-_ord_er«oSf rejection passed on 1.A.12 -- an

   for 'Aa'i'nenId'ment of the plaint.

 the learned counsel on both sides and

pe'ruse..__d  writ petition papers,

A  3. Indisputably, the suit is at the preliminary stage.

Issues having not been raised and trial of the suit having

'not commenced, the proviso to R17 of 0.6 CPC has no

application. R17' of 0.6 CPC Confers wide discretion on

\:/2

./I



the Court to allow either party to alter 

pleading for the purpose of determining thebreal=:¢[uestio"r;t,we 

in controversy between the parties.

4. Considering the .»na.__t_ureV"of"'rhe 

averments made in the p|afif'r'i«ty:,' the ffprorposedvfg pleading
sought to be incorporated _in"_V_theV per I.A.12, in my

opinion, ought__to ha.\.re.:._beenA:,all'o'tved1.gi'*i';'e., except the

following: H t A

flE%afrl'ie~riV5»tVhe.V3sycized'u'l'e prhofpewrty was purchased by the
the amount arranged by the
pla"in_tiff_whi_ch.:isregistered in the name of the 2""
'So "defendantV"'1from the Bangalore Development
if  A'uth"ority asea the sale deed dated 23.06.2000.
   transaction the amount was invested by
 t'he'."_i»2"§g;='defendant out of the amount given by the
p_i'ai.atiff to the 15' defendant. The said amount was
"gVi__§+en by the plaintiff only through the defendant

A  No.1 for purchased of the schedule property."

 decide the real question in controversy between the

parties. 

-

and at any event within 2 months from the date

the suit is completed.

K53’/–