Karnataka High Court
Prahlad S/O Raghavendra Munoli vs Pramod S/O Shamrao Belagundi on 31 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7254
WP No. 103028 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 103028 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. PRALHAD S/O. RAGHAVENDRA MUNOLI,
AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE,
2. MISS. SHEELA RAGHAVENDRA
D/O. RAGHAVENDRA MUNOLI,
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
3. DR. NARAYAN S/O. RAGHAVENDRA MUNOLI,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL EMPLOYEE,
4. RAVINDRA S/O. RAGHAVENDRA MUNOLI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE,
(ALL ARE R/O. CTS NO.313/B, ROY ROAD,
OPP. LELE GROUND TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI - 590001)
...PETITIONERS
YASHAVANT (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
NARAYANKAR
AND:
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
1. PRAMOD S/O. SHAMRAO BELAGUNDI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. C/O. RAM K. MUNOLI, "KRISHNENDRA",
H.NO.313/C, ROY ROAD, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI - 590001.
2. KIRAN S/O. RAGHAVENDRA MUNOLI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. NO.48, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST STAGE,
3RD MAIN, "GELEYARA BALAGA",
MAHALAXMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 86.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7254
WP No. 103028 of 2024
3. SMT. LALITA W/O. SHRINIVAS MUNOLI,
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. A-303, CHUNNA NOOR BHUVAN,
GUPTE ROAD, VISHNU NAGAR,
DOMBIVALLI-WEST, KALYAN, THANE,
DIST: THANE, STATE MAHARASHTRA-400080.
4. SMT. PADMA W/O. VIJAY JOSHI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. 37-B, 402 PAM VIYU CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
MAMATA HOSPITAL, SUDHARSHAN NAGAR, MIDC,
DOMBIVALLI-EAST E.R., THANE,
DIST: THANE, STATE MAHARASHTRA-400080.
5. SMT. NANDA W/O. ANIL HANCHINAL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. NEW RAM BEACH CHS,
NEAR SBI NERUL SECTOR-4,
NAVI MUMBAI, THANE,
MAHARASHTRA-400080.
6. SMT. RUPA W/O. SANJAY NADGIR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. KAPIL KIRAN SOCIETY,
CHAFEKAR, BANDHU MARG,
MULUND-EAST, MAHARASHTRA-400080.
7. SMT. RAJANI W/O. RAJU BELAGONKAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. MAHATMA PHULE ROAD,
NEAR HINDUSTAN BANK,
DOMBIVALLI WEST KALYAN,
VISHNUNAGAR, THANE, MAHARASHTRA-400080.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19-04-2024 ON
I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO.444/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AS NULL AND VOID.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7254
WP No. 103028 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The plaintiffs are assailing the order passed by the
learned Judge on I.A.No.6 filed under order VI Rule 17 of
CPC wherein defendant No.1 is seeking amendment of the
written statement.
2. Learned Judge allowed the application and
permitted defendant No.1 to incorporate the proposed
amendment.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the
order under challenge.
4. Before I advert to examine the reasons
assigned by the learned Judge while allowing the
application filed in I.A.No.6, it would be appropriate to
examine the pleadings in the original written statement
and the pleadings in the proposed amendment. Para 14
would be relevant and the same is extracted as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7254
"14. The defendant No.1 states that, he has invested
the heavy amount and his talent and hard work sincerely to
build the good quality building which was and is regularly
inspected by the parties and as per their requirement and the
demand he has done good quality construction and after their
satisfaction they have taken possession of the flats on
01/07/2023 and the plaintiffs have taken the keys of their
flats also. Hence the suit filed after the completion of the 90%
to 95% work as per development agreement is not
maintainable. This defendant most respectfully submit that,
the property given to this defendant No.1 under the
development agreement was the dilapidated old house and in
the present suit the property mentioned is the 5 storied
apartment which is subsequently constructed in which the
present defendant has 50% share and hence in the present
building the present defendant No.1 is the co-owner/ co-
sharer as per the registered document acted upon on the
property as per the agreement and hence now after the
completion of the construction the plaintiffs and defendant
No. 2 to 7 can not deny the ownership or share of the
defendant No.1 in this false suit and on the false basis can
not claim the cancellation of the development agreement and
GPA for any reason."
5. In the proposed amendment, the defendants
intend to withdraw the pleadings at para 14. Therefore
para 19(A) would be relevant, which reads as under.
"19 (A) "The defendant No.1 respectfully submits that,
as on the date of the suit the plaintiffs nor defendant Nos.2 to
7 were in possession of any of the flats of apartment
constructed by the defendant No.1 and only on the false
pleading by mere showing their residential address of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7254
apartment i.e., mere CTS No.313/B, the plaintiffs have
successfully misguided and cheated the Court to get the
equitable relief in their favour. The defendant No.1
respectfully submits that, on one hand when the plaintiffs
claims that, the apartment building is incomplete and unfit for
residence and on the other hand they claim that they are in
possession and residing therein and these are the false
pleadings are sufficient and crystal clear to find out the false
case and pleadings of the plaintiffs and on this count also the
present suit and interim applications are not maintainable.
The plaintiffs are never in actual possession of flats and
apartment and there is no single piece of evidence produced
before the Court. The defendant No.1 respectfully submits
that, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 7 have not
acquired any right, title and interest in apartment on the
basis of the development agreement. The plaintiffs are
entitled to take possession of the above said flats after
becoming the member of Association of the Residents of flats
by paying the membership fees and on complying the
statutory provisions of law and proper documentation getting
their declaration registered in Sub-Registrar office Belagavi
South from the defendant No.1 and after issuance of
Possession/Occupancy certificate and No Objection Certificate
from defendant No.1 only and till then the plaintiffs and
defendant Nos.2 to 7 are not entitled to claim any rights, title
and possession of the flats of their share as pleaded in
development agreement."
6. On comparing these two paragraphs, this court
would find that defendants have admitted in unequivocal
terms at para 14 of the original written statement that
possession is handed over to the plaintiffs and the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7254
plaintiffs have taken possession of the flats on
01.07.2023. The pleadings relating to handing over
possession by defendants is unequivocal and there is
absolutely no ambiguity in the pleadings at para 14, which
are culled out supra.
7. Now by way of proposed amendment,
dependents clearly intends to withdraw the pleadings
relating to handing over possession on the premise that,
some sentences are missing and the learned Judge
liberally accepts the explanation and permit the
defendants to withdraw the pleadings relating to handing
over possession of flats to the plaintiffs. This court would
also find that apart from reiterating the stand taken by the
defendants in the proposed amendment and the objections
raised by plaintiffs and citing some judgments, there is
absolutely no application of mind. The learned Judge has
not adverted to the facts and has not assigned any
reasons as to how this amendment application deserves to
be allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7254
8. Though it is a trite law that yardstick applicable
to amendment of plaint are not applicable to written
statement and courts normally take a lenient view while
considering amendment of written statements, the said
liberal approach cannot be adopted in the present set of
facts.
9. Admissions in pleadings are given a higher
pedestal in legal proceedings due to their evidentiary
value. Such admissions are considered substantive
evidence and can significantly impact the outcome of a
case. Courts have consistently held that the withdrawal or
amendment of admissions in pleadings should only be
permitted in exceptional circumstances, where it is
necessary to serve the ends of justice. The burden lies on
the party seeking the amendment to demonstrate
compelling reasons for such a change.
10. Upon careful consideration, it is evident that the
defendants' initial admission regarding the delivery of the
flats is unequivocal and unambiguous. The plaintiffs have
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7254
built their case around this admission, and its withdrawal
would fundamentally alter the nature of the dispute. The
proposed amendment by the defendants is not merely a
clarification of a factual error but constitutes a retraction
of a critical admission that has been relied upon by the
plaintiffs. The defendants have failed to demonstrate the
exceptional circumstances required to justify the
withdrawal of their admission. Allowing such an
amendment would cause undue prejudice to the plaintiffs
and is not warranted in the interests of justice.
11. In light of the foregoing analysis, the trial
court's order permitting the defendants to withdraw their
admission suffers from significant infirmities. The
defendants have not provided sufficient justification for the
proposed amendment, and the withdrawal of the
admission would unduly prejudice the plaintiffs' case.
Therefore, the application for amendment of the written
statements to withdraw the admission is denied.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7254
12. The application for amendment of the written
statements to withdraw the admission is hereby denied.
The defendants shall proceed with their case based on the
original written statements. The trial court's order
permitting the withdrawal of the admission is set aside.
13. For the forgoing reasons, this court passes the
following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The order passed on I.A.No.6 is hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
Ct-mck
