Karnataka High Court
Sri. V. Ramesh vs Mr. Deepika Jain on 26 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7822
WP No. 20023 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 20023 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V. RAMESH,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
R/O NO .606, 3524 31 ST N.W.,
CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA.
2. SMT. LALITHAKUMARI,
W/O LATE VASUDEVAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
R/O NO-3, 'SRI SHANKAR',
4TH MAIN CHAMARAJAPET,
BENGALURU - 18.
RPT BY THEIR GPA HOLDER,
Digitally signed SRI. RAVINDRANATH DESAI,
by V KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
Location: High
Court of R/O NO. -25/6, HANUMAPPA BUILDING,
Karnataka PUTTENHALLI PALYA,
PUTTENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 78.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7822
WP No. 20023 of 2023
AND:
MR. DEEPIKA JAIN,
D/O KEWALCHAND JAIN,
AGE-MAJOR,
R/O NO. 69,
MEENA SOWKHYA REGENCY,
GOVINDAPPA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 04.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABISHEK N.N., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN
SO FOR AS REJECTING THE PRAYER TO DECLARE THAT THE
PLAINTIFF NO. 2 IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SUIT
SCHEDULE B-PROPERTY, PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXVII
ADDL, CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH
NO. 38) IN OS NO. 3404/2014, IN IA 1/2023 DATED
08/08/2023 FILED U/O VI RULES 17, R/W SECTION 151 OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND BY
ALLOWING THE APPLICATION ITS ENTIRETY PERMIT THE
PETITIONER NO. 2 TO AMEND THE PLAINT IN PRAYER
COLUMN, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.3404/2014 is directed
against the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 passed on
I.A.No.1/23 by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said application is filed by the
petitioners-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule17 read with Section 151
NC: 2024:KHC:7822
of CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint, was partly allowed
by permitting the insertion of paragraphs 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c)
while rejecting the request of the petitioners-plaintiffs for inserting
the relief of declaration of title in respect of suit schedule 'B'
property.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioners-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the
respondent-defendant No.2 for declaration permanent injunction
and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable
property. The said suit is being contested by the defendants.
4. Prior to the commencement of trial, the petitioners-
plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of the
plaint by incorporating three additional paragraphs viz., 12(a), 12(b)
and 12(c) as well as an additional prayer for declaration that
petitioner No.2-plaintiff No.2 was the absolute owner of the suit
schedule 'B' property. The said application having been opposed
by respondent-defendant No.2, the trial Court proceeded to pass
the impugned order allowing the application in part by permitting
NC: 2024:KHC:7822
amendment to the body of the plaint by allowing incorporation of
paragraphs 12(a) to 12(c) as sought for in the application.
However, the request of the petitioners to incorporate the additional
prayer paragraph 'aa' for the declaration that petitioner No.2-
plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule 'B' property,
was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the same was
barred by limitation, since the application was filed on 07.07.2023,
while the suit was filed in the year 2014. Aggrieved by the
impugned order, insofar as it relates to rejection of the request for
amendment of the prayer column as sought for in the application,
the petitioners-plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present
petition.
5. It is relevant to state that insofar as the impugned
order allowing amendment to the body of the plaint by incorporating
paragraphs 12(a) to 12(c) is concerned, the respondents-
defendants have not challenged the same and the said portion of
the impugned order has attained finality and become conclusive
and binding upon the respondents-defendants. However, insofar as
the impugned order relating to rejection of the amendment of an
additional prayer is concerned, the said finding recorded by the trial
NC: 2024:KHC:7822
Court to the effect that the proposed amendment to the prayer
column was barred by limitation is contrary to the judgments of the
Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and
Another reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369 and in the case of L.C.
Hanumanthappa 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,
wherein it is held that if a request for amendment is opposed on the
ground of limitation, the proper course of action is to permit
amendment and direct that the amendment shall not relate back to
the date of filing of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from
the date of the application which was filed on 07.07.2023 and by
keeping the issue/question of limitation open to be decided by the
trial Court along with other issues in the suit.
6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court refusing
to permit the amendment to the prayer column of the plaint has
occasioned failure of justice and the same deserves to be set aside
NC: 2024:KHC:7822
and the entire application I.A.No.1/23 deserves to be allowed in full
subject to certain conditions.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 08.08.2023 passed in
O.S.No.3404/2014 by the XXXVII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby
modified.
(iii) The application in I.A.No.1/23 filed by the
petitioners-plaintiffs is hereby allowed in full subject
to the condition that the proposed amendment does
not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be
reckoned/considered from the date of application
I.A.No.1/2023 which
(iv) filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs on 07.07.2023.
(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents-
defendants to file additional written statement and
take up all contentions, including the defence of
limitation.
(vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter,
including the question of limitation are kept open
and no opinion is expressed on the same.
NC: 2024:KHC:7822
(vii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KTY
CT:SNN
