IN’ THE HIGH CGURT ore KARNATAKA CIRCU?1’_’« 3
AT DHARWAB __
Dated this tha 18*” éay of _D_¢:c;jmbcé1′;””2fi::u'{)§: *
BEF’Of3E:’.__ « ‘ ‘ ” 4’
THE HOXNFBLE MR;§J’U§’r1éx’5 1i.
Writ Petition No. 3 1ss6*mi’20o3 “:{;:»?:4<:§pCj§§
Between:
Sujata , V Age: 60 3"ea1':,S4 V. 'V V ~ Occ: Hotellitsaj 7. ._
Ward No.”1?ES,4?AE*;1’£e1″”£~§–:3.gar. v
Puellaxyf _ _ — …Petitio11er
_ (By Hegde, Advocate)
..–.:……a
V – Chéiinamaiiappa
S/.-:3 Tfiimlnappa
§i–iAnd’u.,
“1\{‘¥a§§or
r Dbor No.1, Ward 310.16
1*” Cross, {ndiranagar
Behind Government Guest House
Sxiéxmnpxuam Colony’
Bellary
2 V. Tippeswamy
Pmp. Ange Ayuwedalaya
pg}
/ .
Hindu
Major
Patei N agar
Near M C: Automobiles
Ananthapur Road
Bellary … Responde3;£ST
This Writ Petition is filed Imcicr Articics _
the Constitution of india, praying to quash ‘tl1c_£f)xdmf”pé;~a:sé’d V
0211A No. XI in 05 No.385/2002 dated 27«:1,.~.:2Qes3 cg’ the file
of Pr}. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bellary wide ‘AI’iI1t°:’§{11E.f(‘E-*’E’;-.” _
This Writ Petition coming on fbr__§rcfimmé;§: u
day; the Court made the fo11ov«?ir1g_; ‘ _ F
%%%%
T}:1_e :1V1aa§”1;rt zzjid V’ »
matter back for consideration of the ieeeues élteady
the ease, resezving liberty to parties: L’
frame additional issues and _vevi::1.e1;«;:e:.. such
remand, the present for impleadment
complaining thatyet anefher ” }:3ee11 encroached
upon in the defentiant who
accerdfng to’ aa’ flame lender ef the defendant.
Therefore, vwé;:,r_ = a3:ii’:’e..e4ndme13t he was setzght to be
inlpleetied an€1V”e_i_e:d meudatery i11j1J3:1ci:i0I; has to be granted
V. agaj;f13t_v.:tft¥at::30rtion of the pmperty which is eneroaehed upon
L\y”fl:;_1ex defendant. The said ayplieation was opposed.
()n”{:0:1$id’e;*2§itio:1 ef the rival contentions the trial Court: has
that’. proposed amendment is essential, material and
neeeseazy. Aaeeerelingly it has ailewed the same. Aggieved by
…t§fle same; defendant is befbre this Ceurt. %
– 4 _
3. The learned Counsel for the giefifioner assailing
the iznpugneéi order contends that in the first place,’ cause of
action for amendment was in the}; year 2005, whereas, the
suit is filed in 2002. Therefore, the said amendznenteliouid
not be pexmitted. Secondly, it was contentied fl*_f,-:3?’
of relief of mandatory injunction is
impermissible in law. TI1erefo1*e,:~’i{‘ the’
impugned order requires interference, A
4. I do not see s1ibsf}fie.ee–~..in tl1e’oo11te:?i1tions. In
the fire: defendant is sought to be
impiear impieading that person arose dining the
pexiéienojé .0-fificie prooeedixzgs. Therefore, it is settled law that
Iiae to take note of aii subsequent events which are
. ‘rel in deciéing the case. In that View of the matter, when
…f:i?ie triai Court in its discretion found that the amendment 2:.
V neeessary for oroper cietermination of the read controversy
V..
-5-
between the parties and has Lxerciscd its discretion and
granted the relief, no cart: for interference under Artic1¢’.’2§26 of
the Consmation of India is made out. Hence,
:2 dismissed. :
kspl –