Karnataka High Court
Leelavati D.K vs Rajashekarappa S/O Neelappa ... on 21 September, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
-1-
WP No. 148647 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.148647 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. LEELAVATI D.K.
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KODIYALA HOSAPETE,
TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI.
2. SWAPNA D.K.
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KODIYALA HOSAPETE,
TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI.
3. CHETANA D.K.
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KODIYALA HOSAPETE,
TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI.
4. BEENA D.K.
AGE 25 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
R/O KODIYALA HOSAPETE,
by
MOHANKUMAR
TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI.
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date:
2022.09.26
12:15:27 +0530
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O NEELAPPA SOPPIN
AGE 65 YEARS, OCC BIRLA WORK,
R/O KODIYALA HOSAPETE,
TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI.
-2-
WP No. 148647 of 2020
2. SANGAMESH S/O RAJASHEKARAPPA SOPPIN
AGE 32 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KODIYALA HOSAPETE,
TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT VINAYA KUPPELUR ,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.VI DATED 16/01/2010
BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR IN
OS NO.269/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2010
passed on I.A.VI by the Additional Civil Judge and II Additional
JMFC, Ranebennur in O.S.No.269/2014 have filed this writ
petition.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are as
under :
The petitioners filed the suit for declaration and injunction
in O.S.No.269/2014 against the respondents. The respondents
filed the written statement. The trial Court framed the issues.
When the case was posted for recording the petitioners'
evidence, the petitioners filed an application for amendment to
WP No. 148647 of 2020
the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The said application
was opposed by the respondents by filing objection. The trial
Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application filed
by the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the
learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners filed the application before commencement of trial.
He submits that the trial Court ought to have taken a lenient
view in entertaining the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
but on the contrary has dismissed the application solely on the
ground that the petitioner, prior to the filing of I.A.VI has filed
I.A.II. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in
dismissing the application. On these grounds he prays for
allowing the application.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the proposed amendment changes the nature of
case and the cause of action. She further submits that the
petitioners have filed a similar application in I.A.II and the said
application came to be allowed. She submits that petitioners
WP No. 148647 of 2020
have filed the present application only with an intention to
protract the proceedings. She further submits that the trial
Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the
petitioners. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the writ
petition.
6. Heard and perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction.
Respondents filed the written statement. The trial Court framed
the issues. When the case was set down for recording the
evidence of the petitioners, the petitioners have not yet entered
into the witness box. The petitioners filed an application
seeking for amendment to the plaint. The trial Court has
rejected the said application solely on the ground that the
petitioner has filed an application-I.A.II seeking for the same
relief.
8. The Court while considering the application for
amendment before commencement of trial is required to be
liberal in its approach. The Court has to bear in mind that the
opposite party would have a chance to meet the case setup in
WP No. 148647 of 2020
amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in
irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the
opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result
of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the
amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the
amendment is necessary for the Court to effectively adjudicate
on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the
amendment should be allowed. The said view is reiterated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance
Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited
and Another in Civil Appeal No.5909/2022 disposed of on
01.09.2022.
9. In view of the above discussion and considering the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance
Corporation of India supra, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
10. Accordingly, the following order is passed :
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned order is set aside;
WP No. 148647 of 2020
iii) The application filed by the petitioners is allowed
subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by
the petitioners to the respondent on the next date of
hearing.
iv) Respondents are permitted to file additional written
statement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rs
