Karnataka High Court

Sri. Swaranjit Singh vs Sri. Ramaiah on 7 March, 2024

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                         -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:9667
                                                    WP No. 5591 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                                      BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 5591 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

            BETWEEN:

            SRI. SWARANJIT SINGH
            S/O LATE S JAGATH SINGH,
            AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
            RESIDING AT NO.23, 3RD 'B' CROSS,
            2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT,
            BANGALORE-560 076.
                                                           ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S G., ADVOCATE)
            AND:
            1.   SRI. RAMAIAH
                 S/O LATE M MUTHARAYAPPA,
                 AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                 RESIDING AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
                 KRISHNARAJAPURAM,
                 BANGALORE-560 045.
Digitally
signed by
VANDANA S        ALSO AVAILABLE AT
Location:
HIGH             MOTHER THERESA MEMORIAL SCHOOL,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA        VARONALI, MARAGONDANAHALI VILLAGE,
                 NEAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
                 BANGALORE-560 036.

            2.   SRI SRINIVAS
                 S/O SRI RAMAIAH,
                 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                 RESIDING AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
                 KRISHNARAJPURAM,
                 BANGALORE-560045.

                 ALSO AVAILABLE AT
                                 -2-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:9667
                                             WP No. 5591 of 2024




     MOTHER THERESA MEMORIAL SCHOOL,
     VARONALI, MARAGONDANAHALI VILLAGE,
     NEAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560 036.

3.   G R CONSTRUCTIONS
     BY ITS DIRECTOR/ MANAGER
     161/A, TEACHERS COLONY
     1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
     KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
     NEAR DAYANAND SAGAR COLLEGE,
     KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
     BENGALURU-560 078.
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 19/12/2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2023 FILED UNDER ORDER
VI ORDER 17 OF CPC IN OS NO.25459/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.25459/2016 is directed

against the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 whereby the

application I.A.No.1/2023 filed by the respondents - defendants

under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to the written

statement was allowed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

the material on record.

NC: 2024:KHC:9667

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the

petitioner - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the

respondents - defendants for ejectment and other reliefs in relation

to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being

contested the respondents - defendants. After commencement of

trial, respondents - defendants filed the instant application seeking

amendment of the written statement by incorporating additional

paragraphs 6(a) to 6(d) and paragraphs 29(a) and 30(a) to the

written statement. The said application having been opposed by

the petitioner, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned

order allowing the application by holding as under:

"ORDERS ON IA.NO.1/23 U/O.6 RULE 17 OF CPC

The learned counsel for 2nd defendant has filed the present application U/o.6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking the amendment in the plaint.

The proposed amendment is as under:-

To insert

6(a) The Defendant No.1 filed WP No.60012/2014, claiming to be the owner of 10 Guntas of land is Sy.No.84/7 of Thanisandra Village, Seeking writ of Mandamus directing the BDA to issue endorsement dropping the Acquisition proceedings in respect of 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.84/7 and further direction to the BDA to consider and dispose of his

NC: 2024:KHC:9667

representation dated 09.10.2013, the said Writ petition was disposed of along with other batch of writ Petitions by order dated 27.09.2021. Thereafter, the Defendant No.1 has submitted a representation dated 20.11.2021 seeking dropping of the land on the ground that the land in question is ill the midst of the land, which is not notified, as such it is an island and therefore it deserves to be dropped from acquisition.

6(b). As per the plaint averments, the Suit schedule property comes within the Sy.No.84/7, is the subject before the Hon'ble Justice K N Keshavanarayana Committee, Bengal, and the committee after considering the representation same is

(Thanisandra).

6(c). At the stage of considering the representation, the Committee and the Defendant No.1 & 2 came to know that BDA had formed 3 sites in the acquired land in

measuring 40 x 60, have been already allotted to three persons.

6(d). The Hon'ble Justice K N Keshavanarayana Committee, on 11.07.2022, makes the following recommendations to the BDA,

i) The request made by the applicant for dropping of the notified land to an extent of

acquisition process in respect of the land in question be continued and taken to its logical end.

ii) If any sites in the notified land have been allotted by the BDA, the BDA shall take necessary steps immediately to take

NC: 2024:KHC:9667

allotment to its logical conclusion by executing the sale deeds and placing the allottees in possession of the allotted sites.

29(a). The entire plaint is being cleverly drafted to suppress from giving the exact date of losing possession. There is inconsistency in the dates of cause of action which is different in plaint and their legal notices issued to the defendant which is also produced along with the plaint.

30(a) The plaintiff ought to have paid court fee on the market value of the property as per Section 29 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and the valuation of the subject matter of the suit, has a direct relevance to the amount of the court fee payable, as per the plaint pleadings the property comes within the formation of layout called "Arkavathy Layout", hence the court fees paid by the plaintiff is insufficient by giving wrong address and the location as the said valuation is done for Thanisandara, hence the court fees valuation is not in accordance with the Karnataka Court fees and Valuation Act, 1958 and Rules, 1960.

2. In the affidavit annexed to the application, nd 2 defendant contended that the proposed amendment sought is necessary to adjudicate the real dispute in controversy between the parties. If the amendment application is allowed, it will not change the nature of case, hence it is necessary to amend the written statement and prays to allow the application.

3. On the other hand, plaintiff filed objection and contends that the defendant failed to establish sufficient grounds to amend the written statement. The defendants have not offered satisfactory

NC: 2024:KHC:9667

explanation to show that in spite of due diligence they could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

4. It is further submitted that explanation offered in the application clearly shows that whatever has been sought to be added by way of an amendment was well within their knowledge and they could have stated so in their written statement. The ground that the amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement clearly shows that the application for amendment is not bonafide and the same is filed only to protract the matter. The object behind the provision is to curb the mischief of unscrupulous litigant adopting dilatory tactics to delay the disposal of the cases and to defeat the right of opposite party approaching the court for quick relief and also to cause serious inconvenience of the court faced with frequent prayers for adjournment. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same.

5. It is further contended that the application filed by the defendants is not maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. On these and other grounds, plaintiff prays to reject the application.

6. Heard arguments on both side. Perused the records.

7. The points for consideration that arise before this court is as under:-

1. Whether I.A.No.1/23 filed by defendants U/o.6 Rule 17 of CPC is deserves to be allowed?

2. What order?

8. My findings on the above points are as under:-

NC: 2024:KHC:9667

Point No.1: in the affirmative, Point No.2: As per the final order

- for the following:

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:- Perused the proposed amendment and contentions of the defendant No.2 and the objection filed by the plaintiff.

10. The proposed amendment sought by defendant No.2 is not going to change the nature of suit or subject matter of the suit. Moreover, trial is not yet commenced. The facts urged in the application for amendment is essential for proper adjudication of the case. By merely allowing the present application would not amount to succeed in the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and our Hon'ble High Court have in plethora of Judgments opined for liberal view while disposing application U/o.6. Rule 17 of CPC. In view of the aforesaid reasons this courts opines that it is just and expedient in the interest of justice to allow the application filed by the defendants for amendment of written statement. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons I.A.No.1/2023 U/o.6 Rule 17 of CPC filed by defendants 1 and 2 deserves to be allowed by answering Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

11. POINT NO.2: In view of the findings on Point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

U/O.6 Rule 17 of CPC is hereby allowed."

4. A perusal of the material on record including the

impugned order as well as the proposed amendment will clearly

NC: 2024:KHC:9667

indicate that the amendment allowed by the Trial Court is in

conformity that the principles governing the amendment of

pleadings as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private

Limited and Ors - AIR 2022 SC 4256.