Karnataka High Court
Ravi @ Ravish vs Smt. Shailaja on 2 August, 2023
Bench: Sachin Shankar Byssmj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8092
WP No. 100130 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 100130 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
RAVI @ RAVISH,
S/O. M.K. BASAPPA KUNTUR,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H.B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHAILAJA,
W/O. RAMANAGOUDA NEELANAGOUDAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. MORIGERI VILLAGE,
YASHAVANT H. B. HALLI TALUK,
NARAYANKAR
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad
2. SMT. SUJATHA @ SHARADA,
W/O. KOTRAGOUDA NEELANAGOUDAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
3. SMT. SUGANDHA W/O. CHANDRAPPA TOTADA,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8092
WP No. 100130 of 2021
4. SMT. SRIDEVI W/O. BASAVARAJ SANCHI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. SONNA VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
5. SMT. JYOTHI W/O. SHARANAPPA BYALAHUNCHI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE-583212,
H. B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
6. SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA,
W/O. M.K. BASAPPA KUNTUR,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
7. SMT. S. NAGAMANI W/O. K. PRABHU,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
8. NAGARAJ S/O. M. K. BASAPPA KUNTUR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
9. GURUPRASAD S/O. M. K. BASAPPA KUNTUR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
10. UMESH S/O. M. K. BASAPA KUNTUR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583212.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI SHRIKANT T. PATIL AND ROHIT S. PATIL, ADV. FOR R6 TO R10)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8092
WP No. 100130 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED IN CIVIL M.C.NO.8/2019 DATED 28/09/2020 BY THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE AT
ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the defendant
assailing the order of the learned Judge, who has not
entertained the application filed under section 152 of CPC
and by exercising judicial discretion has permitted the
plaintiff to amend the plaint as well as decree in regard to
suit schedule property details. The said order is under
challenge.
2. Heard the counsel for petitioner and the learned
counsel for respondents.
3. The captioned petition arises out of a partition
suit, which was decreed by the judgment and decree dated
06.02.2015 and the same has attained finality. Pursuant to
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8092
WP No. 100130 of 2021
passing of decree, the plaintiffs have realized that there is a
typographical error in describing the details of the suit
schedule property. Though the plaintiff has included the
properties held by the family, while referring the agricultural
lands in schedule, the sub-divisions are not indicated and in
respect of suit schedule item No.19 and 20, the village name
is wrongly mentioned.
4. The learned Judge having found this discrepancy
in the schedule, bearing in mind the substantive rights of the
parties has exercised judicial discretion and has allowed the
application. The scope of amendment of plaint and decree is
dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Niyamat Ali
Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd.,
and others1 as well as reported judgment rendered by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.203998/2014
disposed on 05.07.2019. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that amendment cannot be refused where mistake or
negligence has occurred on account of inadvertence or on
account of mistake by the lawyers while drafting the plaints.
(2007) 3 SCC 421
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8092
WP No. 100130 of 2021
The principles laid down in the above said judgments are
squarely applicable to the case on hand. The order under
challenge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and
accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merits,
stands dismissed.
5. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
