Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manigaiah vs Sri. Muttarayappa on 7 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45195
WP No. 21109 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 21109 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANIGAIAH,
SON OF LATE ELEMASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE,
CHIKKASOLURU DAKHALE,
SOLUR HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK-562 120,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. MUTTARAYAPPA,
SON OF LATE MULLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE,
CHIKKASOLURU DAKHALE,
Digitally signed SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK-562 120
by
MARKONAHALLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH
...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY SRI INDU SHEKAR B.T., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS AND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.
NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING FOR AMENDMENT OF
PLAINT TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL PRAYER FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT OR HIS AGENT OR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45195
WP No. 21109 of 2024
ANYBODY CLAIMING UNDER HIM FROM INTERFERING IN PEACEFUL
POSSESSION, CULTIVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SUIT
SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN O.S.NO.452/2012 ON THE FILE OF
PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT MAGADI IN R.A.NO.24/2020 ON
THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT MAGADI
WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The appellant in R.A No.24/2020 on the file of Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Magadi, (henceforth referred to
as 'the Appellate Court') has filed this petition challenging an
order dated 03.06.2024 by which an application (I.A. No.3)
filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') to amend
the plaint in O.S.No.452/2012 was rejected.
2. The petitioner filed O.S. No.452/2012 before the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Magadi, (henceforth referred to
as 'the Trial Court') for specific performance of an agreement of
sale dated 21.01.1986. The said suit after contest was
dismissed. An appeal was preferred therefrom in R.A. No.
NC: 2024:KHC:45195
24/2020 before the Appellate Court. In the appeal, the
petitioner herein submitted that the respondent herein was
attempting to interfere with his possession of the suit schedule
property and he filed an application (I.A. No.3) under Order VI
Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC., to amend the plaint in
O.S No.452/2012 to incorporate the relief of perpetual
injunction against the respondent herein. The said application
was rejected by the Appellate Court in terms of the impugned
order on the ground that the application (I.A No.3) was filed at
a belated stage and that the petitioner herein was attempting
to belatedly seek protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. The Appellate Court also noted that the
petitioner herein had pleaded in the plaint that the respondent
herein had filed a suit in O.S. No.149/2012 and tried to
interfere with his possession and therefore, the reasons
assigned by the petitioner herein for filing I.A. No.3 belatedly
could not be accepted.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate
Court rejecting I.A. No.3, this writ petition is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:45195
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the petitioner was placed in possession of the suit schedule
property under the agreement of sale dated 21.01.1986 and
that the respondent had not disturbed the possession of the
petitioner during the suit. However, the respondent during the
pendency of the appeal - R.A. No.24/2020, had attempted to
disturb the possession of the petitioner and therefore, he was
advised to seek for amendment of the suit. He submits that if
the cause of action for the relief arose after the disposal of the
suit, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the petitioner was
entitled to seek for amendment of the plaint in O.S
No.452/2012 to incorporate additional relief of perpetual
injunction before the Appellate Court. He contends that
allowing the application (I.A. No.3) would not change the
nature of the suit, but the relief was only consequential to the
relief of specific performance. He, therefore, contends that the
impugned order passed by the Appellate Court warrants
interference.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.149/2012 for
injunction against the petitioner in respect of the very same
NC: 2024:KHC:45195
suit property. After contest, the said suit was decreed on
14.11.2017. He submits that this judgment is not challenged
by the petitioner herein before the Appellate Court and the
same has become final. Therefore, he contends that the
petitioner cannot now seek for perpetual injunction against the
respondent.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute
the fact that a suit in O.S. No.149/2012 was filed by the
respondent and the same was decreed by the Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC., Magadi, in respect of the land bearing Sy.
No.54/1 measuring 17 guntas situate at Somedevanahalli
village, Solur hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. In that
view of the matter, the petitioner cannot seek for a counter
relief of injunction in the appeal - R.A. No.24/2020 filed by him
against the respondent in respect of the very same property. If
the petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
14.11.2017 passed in O.S No.149/2012, he ought to have
NC: 2024:KHC:45195
challenged the same in the manner known to law. As a result,
allowing the application (I.A. No.3) for amendment by the
Appellate Court in R.A. No.24/2020 would serve no useful
purpose in the face of the said judgment of perpetual injunction
dated 14.11.2017 passed in O.S. No.149/2012 in favour of the
respondent. The Appellate Court was right in not entertaining
the application (I.A. No.3) filed by the petitioner.
Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SMA
