Karnataka High Court
Smt.K.Shanthalakshmi vs Smt.Sharadha on 7 July, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 13488 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.K.SHANTHALAKSHMI
DAUGHTER OF LATER KRISHANA REDDY,
WIFE OF SRI RAHUL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KACHARAKANAHALLI,
BANGALORE 560084
2. SRI K NAVEENKUMAR
SON OF LATE KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 113/1, 'NAVI NILAYA', 14TH CROSS
BHUVANESWAR LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALA,
MARATHAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE 560037
3. SMT K SOWMYA
DAUGHTER OF LATER KRISHANA REDDY
WIFE OF SRI CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED AOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUNNEKOLALA,
BANGALORE 560037
4. SRI K DILIP
SON OF LATE KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVI NILAYA,
2
BHUVANESWAR LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALA,
MARATHAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE 560037
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P.M.GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SIDDAMALLAPPA.P.M, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.SHARADHA
WIFE OF LATE KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 113/1, 14TH CROSS
BHUVANESWAR LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALA,
MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE 560037
2. SMT N SAROJA
WIFE OF LATE SHANTHARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO 286,
THIRUMALA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
NEAR MUNNEKOLALA BUS STAND, MUNNEKOLALA,
MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE 560037
3. SRI M S RAVI
SON OF LATE SHAMANNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VENKATESWARANILYA, 1ST CROSS
BEHIND BHAGINI HOTEL, MARATHALLI OUTER RING
ROAD, MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE,
BANGALORE 560037
4. SMT PANKAJA RAO
WIFE OF B S ACHUTHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIIDNG AT NO 132/A, MES COLONY
KONENAAGRAHARA HAL POST,
BANGALORE 560037
3
5. SMT N SHANTHA
WIFE OF SRI M S RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 81, MSR LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS 1ST MAIN OUTER RING ROAD,
MUNNEKOLALA MARATHAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE 560037
6. SMT RUKMINI
WIFE OF SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 217, 7TH CROSS,
NANJA REDDY COLONY,
BANGALORE 560017
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DTD 27.06.2022 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.26317/2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 72ND
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-73),
MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU, ON I.A.NO.1/2022 THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER-6,
RULE 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS PER
ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the
plaintiffs questioning the order dated 27.06.2022
passed by the learned 72nd Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-73), Bengaluru on
I.A.No.1/2022 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in
O.S.No.26317/2012, as per Annexure-D wherein the
petitioners amendment application seeking
amendment of plaint, is deferred by holding that it will
be considered along with the main matter.
2. The petitioners/plaintiffs have instituted a suit
for partition and separate possession. By proposed
amendment, the petitioners want to restrict their
claim in respect of item No.2, admitting the alienation
made by their father i.e., defendant No.1 in favour of
third party. The said application is not contested by
the other contesting defendants. Under the proposed
amendment, petitioners want to exclude an extent of
3900 sq.ft in item No.2, on the premise that father
has alienated and therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled
for share. The petitioners also by way of amendment
averred that they have consented for the sale deed.
3. The learned Trial Judge ought to have allowed
the application. However, he deferred it to be heard
along with the main matter. There was an error in
procedure adopted by the learned Trial Judge. If
plaintiffs want to restrict their claim in respect of item
No.2, the learned Trial Judge erred in deferring the
orders on amendment application. Since, the matter is
now posted for judgment, the learned Trial Judge
cannot proceed without passing orders on an
amendment application. The application is liable to be
allowed and therefore, the impugned order is not at all
sustainable. Before pronouncing the judgment, the
learned Trial Judge shall pass orders after hearing
both the parties.
Accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated
27.06.2022 is set aside.
The learned Trial Judge is directed to
decide the application filed under Order 6
Rule 17 of CPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
