Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramachandrappa vs Smt. Shyamalamma on 6 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19764
WP No. 9997 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.9997 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT MALLU VILLAGE
JAMNGAMAKOTE HOBLI
SIDLAGATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHYAMALAMMA
Digitally D/O. LATE NANJAPPA
signed by V W/O. SRIRAMAPPA
MANJUSHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
BAI
RESIDING AT MANDIBELE VILLAGE
Location:
High Court VIJAYAPURA HOBLI
of Karnataka DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 105.
2. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O. LATE NANJAPPA
W/O. MUNINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT CHOKKANDEHALLY VILLAGE
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19764
WP No. 9997 of 2024
(BY SRI N. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AND QUASH THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., AT SHIDLAGHATTA ON THE FILE OF
F.D.P.NO.19/2022 VIDE ORDER DATED 18-03-2024,
ANNEXURE-A, IN RESPECT OF I.A.NO.4 UNDER ORDER VI RULE
17 OF CPC AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE SAID I.A.NO.4 AS
PRAYED FOR IN THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE SAID I.A.NO.4 ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by
the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta on I.A.No.4
filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in
FDP No.19/2022, defendant no.1 therein has preferred this
writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that a partition suit has
been contested between the parties and the judgment
delivered in RA No.73/2009 has attained finality. As per the
judgment in R.A.No.73/2009, the petitioner as well as
respondent nos.1 and 2 have 1/3rd rights over the suit
NC: 2024:KHC:19764
schedule properties. Subsequently, respondent no.1 herein
preferred FDP No.19/2022 on the file of the Principal Civil
Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta for partition of the suit schedule
properties by metes and bounds in accordance with the order
passed in R.A.No.73/2009.
3. It is submitted that each of the parties have 1/3rd
rights over the suit schedule properties and initially in the
FDP, respondent no.1 herein mentioned the suit schedule
properties correctly. However, thereafter, she filed an
application for amendment of the petition wherein she has
sought to modify the suit schedule properties and the trial
court without application of mind has allowed it. Aggrieved
by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The case of the petitioner is that allowing the
amendment application as prayed for by respondent no.1
herein has resulted in some of the properties over which the
Appellate Court has held that the petitioner has got 1/3rd
rights over the same has been deleted and it will only lead to
multiplicity of proceedings and it will result in the petitioner
losing his rights over a portion of the property.
NC: 2024:KHC:19764
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
justifies the order passed by the trial court and prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The question that arises for consideration in the instant
writ petition is whether the trial court erred in allowing the
amendment application as prayed for?
7. A perusal of the order passed by the trial court
indicates that the trial court has considered Order 6 Rule 17
of CPC and as it permits the parties to amend the petition
before commencement of trial has allowed the amendment
application.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as the respondents
have 1/3rd rights over the properties mentioned in the
schedule to R.A.No.73/2009. Initially, the petition filed in
FDP No.19/2022 contained the same schedule properties as
it is mentioned in R.A.No.73/2009. However, the same is
sought to be altered by respondent no.1 herein by way of
the amendment application. The same is not permissible.
The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that she
NC: 2024:KHC:19764
has given up certain rights in some of the properties, and
hence, she does not want to include the same in the FDP
proceedings. In the course of the proceedings, she is always
at liberty to make necessary submission to the trial court
and give up her rights over some of the properties
concerned, if she so desires in favour of other contesting
parties. However, it is improper to allow the same to be
deleted from the petition. Under the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the order of the trial court is
required to be set aside.
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed by
the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Shidlaghatta on
I.A.No.4 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of CPC in FDP No.19/2022 is hereby
set aside;
NC: 2024:KHC:19764
(iii) I.A.No.4 filed by respondent no.1 herein in FDP
No.19/2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge &
JMFC, Shidlaghatta is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hkh.
