Sri M Nagaraj vs Sri N Venkataswamappa on 17 April, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M Nagaraj vs Sri N Venkataswamappa on 17 April, 2012

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

-~1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF APRIL, 20 1 :
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S$: ABDUL NAZEER.

WRIT PETITION No. 37575/2011 1 IGM -CPC)

BETWEEN

1. SRI. M. NAGARAJ, ,
S/O. LATE MUNINANJAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. | mo

2. SRI. M. BASAVARAJ, : ar
S/O. LATE MUNINANJAPPA, a
AGED ABCUT 25 YEARS..

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT |

URIGILE VILLAGE,.

SUGATUR HOBLI  .

KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI A. MADEUSUDHANA RAO, ADV.)
AND.

: SRI. N. \VENKATASWAMAPPA,

~ S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA,

AGED ABOUT.50 YEARS,
R/A URIGIL! VILLAGE,
SUGATUR HOBLI,

. _ KOLAR FALUK & DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.V. ANANDA, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
997 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-G, DATED 15.9. 2010
PASSED BY THE LEARNED 2NP ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, ON


-~-2-

IA NO.XIII OS. NO.291/07 & ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH
COSTS & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED. TRE 7
FOLLOWING: "

ORDER

This writ petition is directed ageinst the OI der on > [L.A.No.13 dated 15.9.2010 in 9. S -No. 291/200? on the | file of the II Addl. Civil snndge vat Kolar, whereby the application filed by .- the "respondent /defendant for amendment of the written statement has been allowed.

2°01 have "heard the learned counsel for the parties.

a 3. | The. suit filed by the plaintiffs is for permanent dajunction restraining the defendant from anterfeneg ¥ with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant has filed written

- statement. Thereafter, the defendant filed IA No.13 for amendment of the written statement. In the proposed amendment, an additional defence has been set up by p -3- the defendant stating that plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. He further states that the land bearing Sy.No.106 is a Gomal land, out of which 2 _ acres land has been granted te the father. of the | - plaintiffs. The respondent has also given the boundaries - of the said land in the proposed amendment. Ou an earlier occasion, the equrt below had allowed the said application by order "dated Oo. 3.9. 2010. _The plaintiffs challenged the said order by 'ling W.P.No.2967 1/10. This court by order r dated 21. 16. 2010 has set aside the said order and 'remitted the 'matter back to the trial court" for fresh "considtefation in the light of the observations "wade thefein. Thereafter, the Trial Court os has allowed the application.

4, a Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any error in the impugned order.

oo The. respondent/defendant has stated in the affidavit fled in support of the application that while drafting the written statement, by mistake he has not taken the \ -4- proposed defence. The court below has considered every contention of the parties in the course of the order. In my view, this is not a fit case for interfereiyce tittdek. = Article 226 of the constitution of India. Writ petition is a dismissed accordingly. Needless. to say that in view of . the amendment of the written statement, 'the ? petitioner/ plaintiffs should be permitted to lead further evidence in the suit if they so desire. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE KLY/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court