Karnataka High Court
Sri E. Sudhakar Reddy vs Sri Namitlal on 5 March, 2014
Author: Mohan .M.Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.10141/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri E. Sudhakar Reddy,
S/o Gangadhar Reddy,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at 6th Main, Balaji Layout,
Nagashettihalli, Bangalore-560 094.
Petitioner
(By Sri C.M.Desai and Sri Aravind C. Desai, Advs.)
AND:
1. Sri Namitlal, S/o K.S.Lal,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.113, Sterling Residency,
5th Main Road, RMV Extension,
Dollars Colony, Bangalore-560 094.
2. Sri C.M.Muddlaiah,
S/o late Muninanjaiah,
Aged about 73 years,
R/at No.36/1, Rangappa Street,
Chikkamavalli, Bangalore-560 004.
3. Sri D.Krishna Murthy, S/o late Devappa,
Aged about 72 years,
r/at No.57, S.R.Road,
Basappa Circle, V.V.Puram,
Bangalore-560 004.
Respondents
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
order dated 01.02.2014 passed on I.A.No.XIX under
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in O.S.No.1848/2008 on
the file of the XXXVII Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-38) at
Bangalore under Annexure-E.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint.
2. The suit came to be filed by the petitioner herein for declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.2/respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 is bad in the eye of law and the same does not bind the plaintiff. The parties on both sides led in their evidence and the matter is set down for arguments. At that time, application is filed by petitioner seeking amendment of plaint. By virtue of amendment, petitioner/plaintiff wants to contend that the layout is formed by defendants, sites are sold 3 fraudulently and defendant No.1 has constructed the building. According to the plaintiff, all these facts came to his knowledge recently.
3. Such contention of the plaintiff is rightly turned down by the Court below. The building cannot be constructed in a day or two. If plaintiff is interested to take up the aforementioned plea, he could have taken the plea immediately when the building was being constructed.
4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner wants to introduce new plea and fresh grounds altogether by virtue of proposed amendment, the Court below has rightly rejected the application. Hence, no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm