Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chinnappa vs Sri. M. R. Hegde on 23 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
WP No. 25842 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25918 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 25842 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 25918 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
IN W.P.No.25842/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHINNAPPA
S/O LATE CHOWRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT KALENA AGRAHARA
VILLAGE, SOS POST,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560076.
2. SRI C.JOHN PRAKASH
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT KALENA AGRAHARA
Digitally signed by VILLAGE, SOS POST,
VANDANA S
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka BENGALURU 560076
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M. R. HEGDE
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT VILLA NO A-13,
SAPANA HARMONY,
GOGOL, MARGAO,
GOA SALCETE TALUKA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
WP No. 25842 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25918 of 2023
REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER.
SRI SREEPAD R HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO 864, NANDANA, 13TH MAIN,
7TH CROSS, SREE NAGARA,
BENGALURU 560050.
2. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO 16, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE,
2ND CROSS, B G ROAD,
KALENA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU 560076
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.07.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DIST
AT BENGALURU CITY ON IA 4 IN THE SUIT O.S NO.1233/2017 AT
ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
IN W.P.No.25918/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHINNAPPA
S/O LATE CHOWRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT KALENA AGRAHARA
VILLAGE, SOS POST,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560076.
2. SRI JOHN PRAKASH
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT KALENA AGRAHARA
VILLAGE, SOS POST,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560076
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
WP No. 25842 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25918 of 2023
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.AMITA SHENOY,
W/O SRI SHASHIKANTH BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT No.606, BLOCK 'C'
'KRISTAL BERYL, GOTTIGERE,
BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 083.
2. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO 16, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE,
2ND CROSS, B G ROAD,
KALENA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU 560076
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.07.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DIST
AT BENGALURU CITY ON IA 4 IN THE SUIT O.S NO.1235/2017 AT
ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
W.P. No.25842/2023 :
1. This petition by defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S. No.1233/2017
is directed against the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 passed
by the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
City, (hereinafter referred to as, 'Trial Court') whereby, the
application I.A. No.4 filed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff under Order
VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed
by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that respondent No.1 -
plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners -
defendants No.1 and 2 and other defendants for permanent
injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule
immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the
petitioners - defendants No.1 and 2 and other defendants. After
commencement of trial, respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed the
aforesaid application seeking amendment to the prayer column of
the plaint by incorporating the relief of declaration along with
necessary averments in the plaint. The said application having
been opposed by the petitioners - defendants No.1 and 2, the Trial
Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
application, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this
Court by way of the present petition.
4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned
order would indicate that the Trial Court fully justified in permitting
respondent No.1 - plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating the
relief of declaration and necessary averments in this regard.
However, insofar as the contention of the petitioners that the
proposed amendment is barred by limitation is concerned, in the
light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another reported in AIR
2002 SC 3369, L.C.Hanumanthappa (since dead) by his L.Rs.
vs. H.B.Shivakumar reported in 2016 (1) SCC 332 as well as the
recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance
Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and
Another reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court
deserves to be modified by allowing I.A. No.4, subject to the
condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the
date of the suit, but shall be reckoned / considered from the date of
filing the application which was filed on 16.02.2022 by leaving open
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
the question of limitation to be decided by the Trial Court at the
time of final disposal of the suit. At any rate, since the defendants
would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended
plaint and take up all contentions including the defence of
limitation, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court permitting the amendment has not occasioned failure of
justice so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held
by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath
reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 and the petition deserves to be
disposed off accordingly.
W.P. No.25918/2023 :
5. This petition by defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S. No.1235/2017
is directed against the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 passed
by the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru
City, (hereinafter referred to as, 'Trial Court') whereby, the
application I.A. No.4 filed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff under Order
VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed
by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
7. The material on record discloses that respondent No.1 -
plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners -
defendants No.1 and 2 and other defendants for permanent
injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule
immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the
petitioners - defendants No.1 and 2 and other defendants. After
commencement of trial, respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed the
aforesaid application seeking amendment to the prayer column of
the plaint by incorporating the relief of declaration along with
necessary averments in the plaint. The said application having
been opposed by the petitioners - defendants No.1 and 2, the Trial
Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the
application, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this
Court by way of the present petition.
8. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned
order would indicate that the Trial Court fully justified in permitting
respondent No.1 - plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating the
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
relief of declaration and necessary averments in this regard.
However, insofar as the contention of the petitioners that the
proposed amendment is barred by limitation is concerned, in the
light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another reported in AIR
2002 SC 3369, L.C.Hanumanthappa (since dead) by his L.Rs.
vs. H.B.Shivakumar reported in 2016 (1) SCC 332 as well as the
recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance
Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and
Another reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court
deserves to be modified by allowing I.A. No.4, subject to the
condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the
date of the suit, but shall be reckoned / considered from the date of
filing the application which was filed on 16.02.2022 by leaving open
the question of limitation to be decided by the Trial Court at the
time of final disposal of the suit. At any rate, since the defendants
would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended
plaint and take up all contentions including the defence of
limitation, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court permitting the amendment has not occasioned failure of
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
justice so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held
by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath
reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 and the petition deserves to be
disposed off accordingly.
9. In the result, the following -
ORDER
i. Writ Petitions are hereby disposed off.
ii. The impugned order dated 03.07.2023 passed in
O.S. No.1233/2017 and O.S. No.1235/2017 is
hereby modified. I.A. No.4 filed by respondent
No.1 - plaintiff stands allowed, subject to the
condition that the proposed amendment shall not
relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be
reckoned / considered from the date of filing of
the application on 16.02.2022.
iii. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners -
defendants No.1 and 2 to file additional written
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7612
statement to the amended plaint including taking
up of the defence of the limitation.
iv. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter
including limitation are kept open and no opinion
is expressed on the same.
SD/-
JUDGE
HNM
