Karnataka High Court
Sri A V Chandrappa vs Smt Muniyamma on 23 June, 2022
Bench: M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
W.P. NO.9535 OF 2017(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A.V. CHANDRAPPA,
S/O VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT AGRAHARA HOSAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHUVEER R. SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S, SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. MUNIYAMMA,
W/O MUNIPAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT AGRAHARA HOSAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160.
... RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2016
PASSED ON APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF i.e., I) APPLICATION UNDER
SECTION 152 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO AMEND THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2009 AND TO
DELETE THE BOUNDARY SHOWN ON NORTHERN SIDE
OF THE SIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY II) APPLICATION
2
UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO RE-
OPEN OS NO.310/2006 IN ORDER TO FILE THE
AMENDMENT APPLICATION AND (III) APPLICATION
UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC
PRAYING TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO AMEND THE
PLAINT SCHEDULE MENTIONED IN O.S.NO.310/2006
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN)
AND JMFC AT MALUR AS PER ANNEXURE-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner preferred O.S.No.310/2006 on the
file of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Malur, with a prayer
to specifically enforce the agreement entered into with
the defendant therein. The schedule to the property
described in the plaint by the petitioner in the original
suit is as mentioned below:
"The property bearing Sy.No.163, measuring
o.15 guntas out of 1.32 guntas situated at
Agrahara Hosahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur
Taluk bounded on East by: Thammanna land,
west by: Road, North by: Gramatana and South
by:Munishamappa land".
2. The said suit has been decreed by the trial
Court by its judgment dated 31.07.2009. Thereafter in
the year 2016, the petitioner herein preferred
applications under Section 151 and 152 of CPC., with a
prayer to re-open the case and to amend the plaint
changing the boundary of the suit schedule property.
The trial Court has dismissed the said application.
Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is
entitled to seek the amendment as sought by him
before the trial Court under Section 152 of CPC.
Section 152 CPC, which reads as under:
"152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or
orders - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in
judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising
therein from any accidental slip or omission may
at any time to corrected by the Court either of
its own motion or on the application of any of
the parties".
4. What is contemplated under Section 152 of
CPC is amendments to a decree or order of the Court,
which has arisen due to clerical or arithmetic or from
accidental slip or omission.
5. In the instant case, the plaintiff had filed a
suit for specific performance with a particular
description of the property. The suit has been decreed
and the Court has ordered for sale of suit schedule
property in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. There is no
error committed in the judgment or decree. By making
an application under Section 152 of CPC, the
plaintiff/petitioner cannot seek to amend his plaint. The
amendment sought has the affect of changing the
nature of the property. For the said reasons, I do not
find any error in the order passed by the trial Court in
rejecting the interlocutory application.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AG
