Karnataka High Court
Smt. Venkatalakshmamma @ Jayamma vs H V Thimmappashetty on 8 October, 2013
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
-1-
WP No.38062/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
W.P.No.38062/2013(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
@ JAYAMMA
W/O LAKSHMINARASIMHA
D/O VENKATARAMANSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT TANK ROAD, T M CIRCLE
NAGAMANGALA TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 402 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K M SANATH KUMARA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. H V THIMMAPPASHETTY
S/O VENKATARAMANASHETTY
AGE: 86 YEARS
SNUFF MERCHANT
R/AT BAZZAR STREET
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105
2. H V KRISHNASHETTY
S/O VENKATARAMANASHETTY
69 YEARS
SNUFF MERCHANT
R/AT SHETTARA BEEDI
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISTRICT
PIN:571 105
3. SMT LALITHA, W/O H V RACHAPPASHETTY
AGE: 60 YEARS
-2-
WP No.38062/2013
4. NAGESHA
S/O H V RACHAPPASHETTY
AGE: 44 YEARS
5. JAGADEESHA
S/O H V RACHAPPASHETTY
AGE: 40 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE
R/AT SHETTRA BEEDI
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
6. SMT RADHA
W/O H V RAJANNA
AGE: 62 YEARS
7. SANTHOSH KUMAR
W/O H V RAJANNA
AGE: 38 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7
ARE R/AT KUMAR FERTILIZERS
GOKULA ROAD
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
8. H V VENKATESH
S/O VENKATARAMANASHETTY
AGE: 68 YEARS
R/AT MADHU FANCY STORES
BAZAR STREET
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISRICT-571105
H V GOVINDARAJU
S/O VENKATARAMANASHETTY
DEAD BY LRS
9. PREMALATHA
W/O H V GOVINDARAJU
AGE: 61 YEARS
R/AT MADHU FANCY STORES
BAZAR STREET
-3-
WP No.38062/2013
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
10. MALA
D/O H V GOVINDARAJU
W/O MAHENDARA
AGE: 46 YEEARS
R/AT OPPOSITE TO
MARIMALLAPPA COLLEGE
MYSORE-571 102
11. VEDANTA
S/O H V GOVINDARAJU
AGE: 41 YEARS
R/AT MADHU FANCY STORES
BAZAR STREET
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
12. SRINIVASA
S/O LATE RAJAMMA
S/O VENKATARAMANASHETTY
AGE: 61 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.36
DODDI BLOCK
K R NAGAR
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 104
13. M S UMAPATHI
S/O VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
AGE: 61 YEARS
14. M S BALARAJU
S/O VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
AGE: 58 YEARS
15. M S HARISH
S/O VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
AGE: 55 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.13, 14, 15
R/AT BEHIND LAKSHMI TALKIES
B B LAYA ROAD
MYSORE-571102
-4-
WP No.38062/2013
16. M S VASANTHA
W/O GOPALA
D/O LATE STAMP VENDOR MANJUNATH
AGE: 55 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKAMAGALUR
17. BHAGYA
W/O SRINIVASA
D/O VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
AGE: 52 YEARS
R/AT PATTAIGARPALYA
VIJAYANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 020
18. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGE: 50 YEARS
R/AT EERAPPANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
ILAWALA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT-571130
19. BABU
W/O H V THIMMAPPASHETTY
AGE: 46 YEARS
SNUFF MERCHANT
BAZAR STREET
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
20. KUSHUMA
W/O BABU
D/O H V THIMMAPPASHETTY
AGE: 42 YEARS
SNUFF MERCHANT
BAZAR STREET
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
21. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
W/O KOTE KANCHI SHETTY
AGE: 48 YEARS, R/AT SANTHEKEREKODI
TARIKAL VILLAGE
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105 ... RESPONDENTS
-5-
WP No.38062/2013
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DT.2.8.2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) AT HUNSUR
IN O.S.NO.17/2007 ON I.A.NO.17 AT ANNX-F AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
Heard. This writ petition is by plaintiff No.1 in the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2007 and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 02.08.2013, wherein the trial Court has rejected I.A.No.17 filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint in the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.17 of 2007. The impugned order reads as follows:
"In spite of granting time counsel for the plaintiffs did not cross examine D.W.2 on the ground that the I.A. filed u/O 6 R 17 CPC to amend has to be allowed. It is seen from records that on one or the other pretext time is sought only to keep this suit pending. And having found no substance in the submission of learned Counsel for plaintiffs same is hereby rejected & cross of D.W.2 is taken as nil. ............
I.A. U/O 6 R 17 CPC. Heard oral submission of ...............on I.A.17.-6- WP No.38062/2013
This I.A. is filed u/O 6 R 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint to include properties. But in the affidavit of the first plaintiff there are no valid grounds and ............................. Further more, this I.A. has been filed in contravention of amended provisions of O.6 R.17 CPC.
Even though the plaintiffs are at liberty to include joint family properties but no any details or documents in respect of proposed amendment filed or...................... As the affidavit of Ist plaintiff is bald, unsupported & not corresponding with any material. Hence, the only inference is that this I.A. is filed only to protract the proceedings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
order The I.A. of the plaintiffs filed u/o 6 R 17 CPC at IA 17 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Call on for evidence of other witnesses by 23/8."
(Underlining supplied)
2. The suit is of the year 2007. It appears that the petitioner is protracting the proceeding. I have examined the matter in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai (AIR 2003 SC 3044) relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the -7- WP No.38062/2013 Constitution of India pertaining to interlocutory orders passed by Courts subordinate to the High Court.
3. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or cannot be said to have resulted in failure of justice to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.