Venaktalakshmamma vs Venakatalakhmamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 5208 Kant

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

       WRIT PETITION NO.5187 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NARASIMACHAR
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/AT MUTHURAYANAPURA VILLAGE
GANKAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAVEEN KUMAR M, ADVOCATE)

AND

      1. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
         W/O LATE VENKATANARASACHAR
         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
         R/AT KURUBARAKARENAHALLI VILLAGE
         HAMLET OF BANNIKUPPE
         BIDADI HOBLI
         RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109.

      2. NAGARAJU
         S/O CHANDRAPPACHAR
         AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
         DYAVALINGAIANAPALYA VILLAGE
         HAMLET OF BANNIKUPPE
         BIDADI HOBLI
         RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109.
                                          2




                                                              ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NARENDRA BABU H L, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P M, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2021 PASSED IN
Original Suit.NO.302 OF 2011 ON IA.NO.XI FILED BY THE
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT No.2 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ
WITH SECTION 151 OF Code of Civil Procedure PASSED BY THE
LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGAR
VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                     ORDER

This writ petition is filed by defendant No.2 in Original Suit

No.302 of 2011 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge And

JMFC, Ramanagar challenging the order dated 22nd September,

2021 pass on IA.XI.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition

are that the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration with

consequential relief of permanent injunction against the

defendants. The defendants entered appearance and filed

written statement. Defendant No.2 has filed application under

Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment

of written statement. The said application was contested by the

plaintiff. The trial Court, after considering the material on

record, by impugned order dated 22nd September, 2021

dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the

defendant has filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Naveen Kumar M, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri Narendra Babu H.L., for Sri

Siddamallappa, P.M., learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1.

4. Sri Naveen Kumar, M, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, contended that the defendant No.2 is aged and he

has not taken the appropriate plea relating to mortgage in the

written statement and therefore, contended that the impugned

order passed by the trial Court requires interference. In this

regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the

apex court in the case of CHANDER KANTA BANSAL v. RAJINDER

SINGH ANAND reported in (2008)5 SCC 117.

5. Per contra, Sri Narendra Babu H.L., learned counsel

appearing for the respondent, sought to justify the impugned

order passed by the trial Court.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, and on careful examination of the impugned order, the

same would substantiate the fact that the defendant has filed

the application seeking amendment of the written statement at

the stage of argument and I have also noticed the proposed

amendment in the application, which would apparently change

the nature of the suit. I have also noticed that the suit is filed in

the year 2011 and the application came to be filed during 2021

and no explanation is forthcoming in the application with regard

to due diligence on the part of the defendant No.2. In that view

of the matter, the finding recorded by the trial Court is just and

proper and the same does not call for interference in this

petition. Though the judgment referred to by the petitioner

states that the court shall be liberal while considering the

application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure

however, perusal of the finding recorded by the trial Court and in

the factual circumstances on the facts on record, the application

filed by the defendant No.2 does not satisfy the requirement of

due diligence as required under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of

Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid

of merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn