Karnataka High Court
Rama Reddy vs Muniraju on 21 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
W.P. NO.24424 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
RAMA REDDY
S/O CHIKKA DODDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT L MUTHAKADAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK- 562102
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2 . SMT SHIVAMMA
W/O MUNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
L MUTHAKADAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562102
....RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SANDESH T B, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI S B TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
22ND SEPTEMBER, 2021 ON I.A.NO.11 IN O.S.NO.37 OF 2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
SIDLAGHATTA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND IA.NO.11 BE
ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by defendant No.2, in OS No. 37
of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sidlaghatta, challenging the order dated 22.09.2021, declined to
accept application-IA.11 filed by defendant No.2 under Order 6
Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Brief facts are that, the plaintiff has filed a suit for
specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 06.04.2017
entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1.
Defendant No.2, claims to be the purchaser of the land as per
the Sale Deed dated 15.06.2017 from defendant No.1.
Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. In
the meanwhile, defendant No.2 filed an application-IA.11 under
Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure-G) and
sought to add/amend paragraph 14 after paragraph 13 in the
written statement. The said application was resisted by the
plaintiff and defendant No.1. The Trial Court, after considering
the material on record, by the impugned order dated
22.09.2021, dismissed the application on the ground that the
said amendment sought by defendant No.2 could not support for
deciding the matter and as such, dismissed the application.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 has preferred
this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri G Balakrishna Shastry, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Jayakumar S Patil,
learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sandesh T B.,
for respondent No.1 and Sri S.B.Totad, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2.
4. Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of this court to
the written statement filed by defendant No.2, particularly,
paragraph 11 and submitted that defendant No.2 had already
taken a contention in the written statement that the said alleged
Agreement of Sale entered into between the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 is forged, concocted and collusive document and
to support his contention, defendant No.2 has filed an
application seeking proposed amendment in the written
statement. He further contended that, the Trial Court ought to
have accepted said proposed amendment as the same neither
come in the way of law of limitation nor new plea has been
raised in the proposed application. Therefore, the Trial Court
ought to have liberally considered the same. In support of his
submission, he placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of M/s Chakreshwari Construction Pvt.
Ltd., vs. Manohar Lal decided on 10.02.2017 and emphasized
on paragraphs 14 to 17 of the said judgment and submitted that
the Trial Court ought to have accepted the application seeking
amendment of written statement. Accordingly, he sought
interference of this court.
5. Per contra, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior
counsel appearing for respondent No.1, invited the attention of
this court to the Agreement of Sale dated 06.04.2017, produced
at Annexure- R1 to the Writ Petition and submitted that there is
already a seal affixed on the Agreement of Sale and he further
contended that, defendant No.2 has not given any cogent
reasons for proving the diligence as per the provisions
contemplated under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure
and as such, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, I have carefully considered the proposed amendment
sought for by defendant No.2, produced at Annexure-G. On
perusal of the proposed amendment, it would reflect that
defendant No.2 has taken plea with regard to the fraud which
alleged to have been committed by the plaintiff and defendant
No.1 in the suit. Said proposed amendment is tallying with
paragraph 11 of the written statement filed by defendant No.2.
On perusal of both the aspects, I am of the view that defendant
No.2 had already laid foundation at paragraph 11 of the written
statement, with regard to forged and concocted document of
Agreement of Sale dated 06.04.2017. I have also noticed that
accepting the said proposed amendment would not change the
nature of the suit, however, it may be inferred that the proposed
amendment would elaborate the contention raised by defendant
No.2. Therefore, I am of the view that, the trial Court ought to
have considered the same and accepted the said application-
IA.11, as it would appear from the amendment application that
better particulars are already available in Ex.R1- Agreement of
Sale dated 06.04.2017. In that view of the matter, I find force in
the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Applying the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs
M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors reported in 2009 (10)
SCC 84, the Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 22.09.2021
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta on IA.11
in OS No. 37 of 2018, is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
