Anatha Veerashaiva Hostel vs C S Gurushanthaiah
2024 Latest Caselaw 19574 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Anatha Veerashaiva Hostel vs C S Gurushanthaiah on 5 August, 2024

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                                          -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:30840
                                                     WP No. 2307 of 2024




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                        BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 2307 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)


               BETWEEN:

               ANATHA VEERASHAIVA HOSTEL,
               HOLALKERE TOWN,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
               C.U. PARAMASHIVAIAH,
               S/O C.M. UMAPATHAIAH,
               AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
               R/O CHANNAPATNA VILLAGE,
               KASABA HOBLI, HOLALAKERE TALUK-577 526
               REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
               SRI. UMESHA P,
               S/O C.U. PRAMASHIVAIAH,
               AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
               R/O CHANNAPATNA VILLAGE,
               KASABA HOBLI,
               HOLALAKERE TALUK - 577 526.
Digitally signed                                            ...PETITIONER
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI       (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF         AND:
KARNATAKA
                     C.S. GURUSHANTHAIAH,
                     SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

               1.    SMT. GIRIJAMMA,
                     W/O LATE GURUSHANTHAIH,
                     AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

               2.    SRI K.G.S. PRASAD,
                     S/O LATE C.S. GURUSHANTHAIAH,
                     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
                              -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:30840
                                       WP No. 2307 of 2024




3.   SRI. SADANANDA,
     S/O LATE C.S. GURUSHANTHAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

4.   DR. RAVI,
     S/O LATE C.S. GURUSHANTHAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT
     V.P. EXTENSION,
     BESIDE GURUSHANTHA ORTHO CARE,
     CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
    R1 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 05/01/2024 PASSED IN OS NO. 41/2017 ON I.A. NO.
XVI BY THE LEARNED PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
HOLALKERE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAID
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER-VI
RULE-16 AND 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

                        ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order at

Annexure-A dated 05.01.2024 whereby the application filed by

the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been

dismissed.

NC: 2024:KHC:30840

2. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel for the respondents and on perusing the

application and affidavits filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.XVI,

this Court finds that the application has been filed on

21.12.2023, whereas the suit was filed in the year 2017 and a

written statement was filed at the hands of the defendant on

03.12.2018, while an amendment was also brought into the

written statement on 21.11.2022. However, the application

does not disclose any grounds meeting the requirement of the

proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC. No explanation is given

as to the delay and why such an application has been filed long

after the trial has commenced. It is stated in the impugned

order that the evidence of P.W.1 was closed on 14.12.2023,

and thereafter, the application for amendment has been filed.

The application has been dismissed on the ground that the

plaintiff has not been able to convince the Court that despite

due diligence he could not have raised the proposed

amendment before commencement of the trial. Learned

counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on a judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitaben Dinesh

NC: 2024:KHC:30840

Patel Vs. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel reported in (2021) 20

SCC 210.

3. There can be no dispute insofar as the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the provision should be read as

directory and not mandatory. If the party is able to convince

this Court that despite due diligence, he was not able to bring

the information earlier before the Court, then it is permissible

for the Court to allow such an application. No such reasons or

grounds are forthcoming from the application filed by the

petitioner. No contentions have also been raised before the trial

Court insofar as the reasoning that could convince the Court

regarding the due diligence on the part of the petitioner.

4. In that view of the matter, this Court does not see

any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition

stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

rv CT: BHK