Karnataka High Court
Sri K Ravi vs Sri K Sriram on 3 April, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13677
WP No. 73 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 73 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K RAVI
S/O LATE M KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.9, 1ST CROSS
SHAKARAPPA LAYOUT, LALJI NAGAR
LAKKASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560 030.
2. SRI K ARUN
S/O LATE M KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.9, 1ST CROSS
SHAKARAPPA LAYOUT
LALJI NAGAR, LAKKASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560 030.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI (BY SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SRI K SRIRAM
S/O LATE KAVERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT No.123,
NEAR BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE
BALAGARANAHALLI HALLI
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
PIN CODE - 562 106.
2. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O MADIAH
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/AT No.123,
NEAR BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE
BALAGARANAHALLI HALLI
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13677
WP No. 73 of 2024
PIN CODE - 562 106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S G PARTHA SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
22/11/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, ANEKAL IN O.S. No. 490/2021 ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 6
RULE 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 (ANNEXURE-F) AND BE
PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION I.A. (ANNEXURE-D) AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.490/2021 on the file of
the III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Anekal, is directed
against the impugned order dated 22.11.2023, whereby the
application filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs under Order VI Rule
17 of CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint, was rejected by the
Trial Court.
2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the
petitioners - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the
respondents - defendants for permanent injunction and other
reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The
said suit is being contested by the respondents - defendants. Prior
to commencement of trial, the petitioners - plaintiffs filed the instant
NC: 2024:KHC:13677
application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating
Paragraphs 11(a), 11(b), 11(c) seeking to put forth certain
contentions in relation to the subsequent events that were alleged
to have transpired during the pendency of the suit. The said
application having been contested by the respondents -
defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order
rejecting the application on the ground that the amendment of
pleadings incorporating subsequent events is not permissible in
law.
3. In my considered opinion, the said reasoning of the Trial
Court to the effect that the subsequent events cannot be
incorporated by way of amendment is contrary to various
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court including
judgment of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Others, AIR
2002 SC 3369, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that
the party can seek amendment of pleadings by putting forth
subsequent events which had allegedly transpired during the
pendency of the suit and subsequent to its institution. At any rate,
since the respondents - defendants would have an opportunity to
file their additional written statement to the amended plaint and put
NC: 2024:KHC:13677
forth and contest the said amended pleadings and in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar
Aggarwal & Ors Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors, AIR 2006 SC 1647,
wherein it is held that the merits of the amendment cannot be gone
into at the time of considering an application for amendment, I am
of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court deserves to be set-aside and the application filed by the
respondents - plaintiffs deserves to be allowed.
4. In the result, the following;
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is hereby set-aside.
(iii) The application filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs on
05.09.2022 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is
hereby allowed.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents -
defendants to file additional written statement to the
amended plaint.
NC: 2024:KHC:13677
(v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter
including the amended pleadings are kept open and
no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
