Karnataka High Court
K. V. Maruthi Puranika S/O Sri K Vasudeva ... vs Somappa S/O Shekarappa on 2 August, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10950
WP No. 104487 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 104487 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
K.V. MARUTHI PURANIKA,
S/O. SRI K. VASUDEVA PURANIKA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O H.NO. 39, SINDHIGI COMPOUND,
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TALKIES ROAD,
BALLARI-583101.
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
P. SRINIVASACHAR S/O. P. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
ARCHAKA, SRI VENKATESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,
R/O. WARD NO. 19, SLV TEMPLE,
PATEL NAGAR, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SOMAPPA S/O. SHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
GIRIJA A PRESIDENT
BYAHATTI
SRI. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA SEVA TRUST,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
R/O. NO.31, PATEL NAGAR,
KARANTAKA
DHARWAD BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101.
BENCH
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BALLARI IN O.S NO.
735/2022 DATED 20.06.2024 ON I.A. NO.7 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E,
ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10950
WP No. 104487 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, in O.S.No.735/2022 on I.A.No.7 vide Annexure-E in allowing the amendment as sought in the proposed written statement.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.735/2022 against the respondent for the relief of permanent injunction. After filing of the written statement, the respondent filed I.A.No.7 under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') and the same was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections. The Trial Court allowed the said application permitting the defendant to amend the written statement. Hence, this petition is filed.
3. The main contention urged by the petitioner's counsel is that the Trial Court has committed an error in -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10950 WP No. 104487 of 2024 allowing the application for amendment which changes the nature of the issue raised in the written statement and amendment sought would clearly indicate that the said amendment is sought as an afterthought to fill in the lacunae in pleadings of the defendant. The Trial Court has failed to consider the said aspect of the matter. The amendment sought is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and it is filed only to prejudice, to embarrass and to delay the fair trial of the suit. The counsel would also vehemently contend that Order VI Rule 16 of CPC is very clear that if any pleading is made which is unnecessary, scrupulous and vexatious, the same is to be strike off. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that the Trial Court while considering the application for amendment ought to have taken note of the settled law that whether the amendment changes the very nature of the defence which has been taken earlier and subsequently. Such being the case, this scandalous statement cannot be entertained by way of amendment. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10950 WP No. 104487 of 2024
4. Having heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record, it is noticed that the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and even earlier the written statement was not filed within the stipulated time and written statement was filed belatedly when the case was set down for cross-examination. Having read the allegations, particularly, in paragraph No.13(h), the allegations are made on the GPA holder of the plaintiff that no right devolve to him to perform pooja and he is having many habits like drinking alcohol and he is not performing pooja properly and not maintaining the temple timings. The allegations are also made in paragraph No.13(i) that the plaintiff with his friend doing alcoholic parties with non-vegetarian items in temple premises rooms and when this fact came to the knowledge of the defendant along with committee members, removed him from the said room. It is further alleged that the plaintiff used to stole the Hundi amount of the temple and same cannot be entertained by way of amendment. When the relief sought in the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10950 WP No. 104487 of 2024 defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of plaintiff's suit property and not to interfere with the management of the temple situated in the suit schedule property. When the defendant appears and files written statement making allegations against the plaintiff in carrying out the pooja and using of alcohol, non- vegetarian in the temple, the allegations cannot be considered as scandalous and vexatious. Making of factual allegations against the plaintiff that he is not performing pooja properly particularly the GPA holder is not performing the duty will not change any cause of action as they are only factual allegations. The Trial Court has also taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinith Kumar Vs. Mangal Sen Wadhera1 wherein it is held that normally amendment is not allowed, if it changes the cause of action and where the amendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action or raise a new case, but 1 (1984) 3 SCC 352 -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10950 WP No. 104487 of 2024 amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation. The Trial Court has also taken note of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narayana Pillai Vs. P. Pillai2 wherein it is held that it is well settled principle of law that the Courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment of written statement rather than the plaint.
5. The counsel would also submit that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is very clear with regard to striking out the pleadings if it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and having considered the pleadings particularly in paragraph Nos.13(h) and 13(i) with regard to not properly carrying out the work of Pooja is concerned. An allegation is made and hence, the amendment cannot be termed as it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious as contended by the petitioner's counsel. Hence, 2 (2000) 1 SCC 712 -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10950 WP No. 104487 of 2024 I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel.
6. At this stage, petitioner's counsel would vehemently contend that the evidence has been commenced and at the belated stage filed application and admittedly earlier also the written statement was not filed, it is only after the commencement of evidence, the defendants were permitted to file the written statement and additional written statement. It is important to note that reasons are assigned for non-filing of written statement earlier and commencement of the evidence itself is not a ground to reject the amendment as sought since the specific allegation is made with regard to discharging of duty of the plaintiff in performing the pooja and when such allegations are made and the same cannot be prevented by seeking amendment and hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that even after commencement of evidence the claim -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10950 WP No. 104487 of 2024 cannot be entertained and the amendment cannot be allowed.
7. In the case on hand, specific allegation is made against the plaintiff particularly in those paragraphs sought to be inserted and hence, the defendants cannot be prevented. When the allegations are made against the plaintiff by the defendants, the defendants have to prove the same. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in allowing the application for amendment and hence, there is no merit in the writ petition to quash the same.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following :
ORDER Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE NAA CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35