Karnataka High Court
Sri Jayakumar @ Puttaswamy vs Smt Jayalakshmi on 2 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.2151 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI JAYAKUMAR @ PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE MANCHAIAH A.M
WORKING AT SANKRANTHI
FAMILY GARDEN RESTAURANT
(PAN BEEDA STALL)
NEELAGIRI THOPU. 2ND MAIN ROAD
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS
VISHWA NEEDAM POST
SUNKADAKATTE
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
D/O LATE MANCHAIAH A.M
W/O RAJU
R/AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE
ATHAGUR HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
2
NOW R/AT
KERAGODU VILLAGE AND HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 446.
2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O LATE MANCHAIAH A.M
W/O RAJINIKANTH
R/AT HOUSE NO.16
TEERU NILAYA
NEAR SRINIVASA KALYANA MANTAPA
J.P NAGAR, JARAGANAHALLI
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 078.
SRI MANCHAIAH A.M
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
W/O LATE MANCHAIAH
R/AT DOOR NO.676
4TH CROSS, SWARNASANDRA
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
SRI RAVINDRANATHA
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
4. SMT. USHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O LATE RAVINDRANATHA
5. SRI SUPREETH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O LATE RAVINDRANATHA
6. PRAKRUTHI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
D/O LATE RAVINDRANATHA
3
RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE
R/AT D.NO.58, OXFORD SCHOOL
6TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 017.
7. SMT. S LEELA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
D/O SHIVANNA
W/O K.S. CHAMARAJU
R/AT KUKKUR VILLAGE
MARCHANAHALLI POST
MALUR HOBLI
CHANNAPURA TALUK
RAMNAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
MADDUR IN O.S.NO.254/2012 ON IA NO.12 DATED 16.03.2021
VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
APPLICATION ON ITS FILE AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner being aggrieved by the order on I.A. No.12 dated 16.03.2021 passed in O.S. No.254/2012 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur has filed this writ petition.
4
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition is as under:
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 7 for partition and separate possession claiming 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and petitioner adopted the written statement filed by deceased defendant No.1. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the issued and matter was posted for plaintiffs' evidence. When the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner has filed an application seeking amendment of written statement. The said application was opposed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by filing objections. The trial Court after hearing the parties has rejected the application. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that deceased defendant No.1 executed a Will bequeathing the undivided share of defendant No.1 in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that the proposed amendment 5 does not change the nature. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 7 in the year 2012. Defendant No.1 filed written statement on 31.08.2013. The petitioner filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1 on 31.08.2013. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the issues and matter was posted for plaintiffs' evidence. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have already led the evidence and closed their side. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application seeking amendment of written statement on 11.02.2021 i.e., after lapse of more than six years from the date of death of defendant No.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed suit in the year 2012 and alleged Will came to be executed on 11.02.2014 and defendant No.1 6 died on 14.05.2015. The petitioner has not explained reasons for filing the application at the belated stage.
7. As per Proviso under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
8. In the present case, the petitioner has not explained that inspite of due diligence, the petitioner could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing an application for amendment of written statement. The trial Court after considering the material on record has rejected the application. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order by exercising supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM