Karnataka High Court
Kaduramma vs Jayamma on 12 January, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1990
WP No. 11323 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 11323 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. KADURAMMA
W/O LATE KADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
2. MADLETAPPA
S/O LATE KADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
THIPPAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MEDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P.D. SUBRAHMANAYA .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. JAYAMMA
VANDANA S W/O OBALESH,
Location: AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. HANUMAKKA
W/O THIPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3. THIPPENARASAIAH
S/O LATE KADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. RANGA
S/O PUTTANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1990
WP No. 11323 of 2023
5. SHIVANNA
S/O LAKSHMINARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
6. KITTI
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
7. NAGARAJU
S/O DODDANARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
8. MALLESHA
S/O GURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
9. BIDARAPPA
S/O ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
THIPPAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MEDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D R.,ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN O.S.NO.180/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MADHUGIRI AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD
24.02.2023 ON I.A.NO.II MADE IN OS.NO.180/2020 PASSED BY THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE SAID
I.A., FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT
OF PLAINT, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:1990
WP No. 11323 of 2023
ORDER
This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.180/2020 on the file of
The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri is directed against
the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 whereby application I.A.No.II
filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for
amendment of the plaint was rejected by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record discloses that the
petitioners - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent
injunction and other reliefs against the respondents - defendants in
relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is
being contested by the respondents - defendants and issues have
been framed by the Trial Court prior to commencing by the Trial
Court, petitioners - plaintiffs moved the application seeking
amendment of the plaint by seeking incorporation of the prayer for
declaration and possession in relation to the suit schedule property
and also certain corrections in the body and schedule to the plaint.
The said application having been opposed by the respondents -
NC: 2024:KHC:1990
defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order
rejecting the application aggrieved by which the petitioners are
before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial
Court has rejected the application on the ground that the
application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners -
plaintiffs in the suit had been rejected by the Trial Court and
confirmed by the Appellate Court on 21.04.2022 prior to the filing of
amended application. The Trial Court has also examined merits /
demerits of the rival contentions and has rejected the application
on the ground that the petitioners - plaintiffs had not produced any
documents in support of their claim.
5. In my considered view, even the Trial Court clearly erred
in placing reliance upon interlocutory orders passed on the
application for temporary injunction which was confirmed by the
appellate Court without appreciating that rejection of an application
for temporary injunction and confirmation of the same by the First
Appellate Court, especially at the interlocutory stage, could not
have made, the basis to reject an application for amendment of
pleadings, particularly prior to commencement of trial since there is
NC: 2024:KHC:1990
no nexus or connection whatsoever between the interlocutory order
passed on an application for temporary injunction and the right of a
party to seek amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17
CPC.
6. It is also relevant to state that while considering
application for amendment with pleadings, the merits / demerits of
the proposed amendment cannot be gone into as held by the Apex
Court in the case of RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS
v/s K.K.MODI AND OTHERS, (2006) 4 SCC 385 and on this
ground also, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot
be sustained.
7. A perusal of the impugned order will also indicate that
the same is contrary to well settled principles of law governing
amendment of pleadings as enunciated by the recent judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
OF INDIA v/s SANJEEV BUILDERS (P) LIMITED AND
ANOTHER, 2022 SCC 1128 especially when the request of the
petitioners to convert the suit for permanent / bare injunction
simpliciter into one for declaration and possession was permissible
by leaving open the question of limitation.
NC: 2024:KHC:1990
8. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that
the respondents - defendants would have an opportunity to file
their additional written statement to the amended plaint and no
prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the proposed
amendment were to be allowed and consequently, the impugned
order passed by the Trial Court having occasioned failure of justice,
the same deserves to be set aside and application for amendment
deserves to be allowed.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Impugned order passed in O.S.No.180/2020 on the file of
The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, is hereby set
aside.
(iii) I.A.No.II filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for amendment
is hereby allowed subject to the condition that the proposed
amendment shall not relate back the date of the suit and
shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the application
which was filed on 25.08.2022.
NC: 2024:KHC:1990
(iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including
the limitation etc., are kept open and no opinion is expressed
on the same.
(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to file
additional written statement to the amended plaint.
(vi) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of
one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DHA
