Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Mr K M Rajashekar Murthy vs M/S Renuka Lakshmi Granites on 16 June, 2014

Author: Dilip B.Bhosale

Bench: Dilip B Bhosale

                              1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

             DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2014

                             BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

                  W.P.NO.54897/2013
                         C/W
              W.P.NO.10533/2014 (GM-CPC)

IN W.P.NO.54897/2013

BETWEEN

MR K M RAJASHEKAR MURTHY
S/O SRI MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAGGALADU VILLAGE
SHIRA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT                                  ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI K H SOMASEKHARA, ADV.,)

AND

1.    M/S RENUKA LAKSHMI GRANITES
      A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED
      UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
      CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT NO.24, 4TH CROSS
      1ST MAIN, SUBEDAR PALLYA, YESHWANTHAPURA
      BANGALORE-560022
      REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
      SMT. ANNAPOORNA CHANDRASHEKAR
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

2.    MR K M CHANDRASHEKAR
      S/O MAHALINGAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      RESIDING AT NO. 24
      4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN
      SUBEDAR PALLYA
      YESHWANTHAPURA
      BANGALORE-22
                               2


3.   MR GOVARDHAN
     S/O SRI SWARAPPA MADDE
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO.4/5B
     GANGOTHRI ROAD, SIT
     EXTENSION, TUMKUR

4.   THE DIRECTOR
     DEPARTMENT OF MINES &
     GEOLOGY, RACE COURSE ROAD
     BANGALORE-560001                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ARUN K S, ADV., FOR C/R1 & R2;

SRI K M CHANDRASHEKAR, PARTY-IN PERSON R2) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE ORDER IMPUGNED VIDE ANN-A AND ETC., IN W.P.NO.10533/2014 BETWEEN:

1. M/S. RENUKALAKSHMI GRANITES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.24 4TH CROSS, I MAIN, SUBEDARPALYA YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE-560022 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SMT ANNAPOORNA CHANDRASHEKAR

2. SRI K M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRI LATE K T MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NO.594, 9TH CROSS TRIVENI ROAD, DIWANARAPALYA BANGALORE-560022 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARUN K S, ADV., FOR PETITIONER NO.1 (BY SRI K M CHANDRASHEKAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON), PETITIONER NO.2) 3 AND

1. SRI.K.M.RAJASHEKARAMURTHY S/O LATE SRI K T MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS KAGGALADU VILLAGE SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT AND ALSO AT NO.20 DODDAPPAIAH LAYOUT NAGASHETTIHALLI RMV II STAGE BANGALORE-560094

2. SRI GOVARDHAN S/O SRI SWARAPPA MADDE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PRESENTLY R/A NO.1194 4TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN K N EXTENSION YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560022

3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T L, ADV., FOR R3/STATE) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.18.11.2013 PASSED BY THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT, BANGALORE CITY, THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION NO.8 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF NO.1/1ST PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.7762/2000 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-E. THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

PC:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. These two writ petitions are filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 respectively, against a common order passed by the Court below on their applications at I.A.Nos.8 and 9. I.A.No.8 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the second writ petition seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, while I.A.No.9 was filed by the original defendant No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking his transposition as plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff's application, by the impugned order, seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected while the second defendant's application permitting him to be transposed as plaintiff No.2 came to be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition, at the outset, submitted that transposition of defendant No.2 as plaintiff No.2 is likely to prejudice his rights and that he has no objection for allowing defendant 5 No.2 to file separate suit. This submission itself shows that no prejudice will be caused to defendant No.1 if the order transposing defendant No.2 as plaintiff No.2 is maintained. In the circumstances, the order passed on I.A.No.9 whereby defendant No.2 is permitted to be transposed as plaintiff No.2 is confirmed. This, however shall not preclude the respondent from raising an issue of limitation and if any such issue is raised the Court below shall consider the same on merits in accordance with law.

4. Insofar as I.A.No.8, filed by the plaintiff seeking extensive amendment of the plaint is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff in W.P.No.10533/2014, on instructions, does not press the amendments as sought and seeks permission to only amend quarry lease No.182, mentioned in the original plaint, as quarry lease No.704. There doesn't appear to be any dispute that during the pendency of the suit, quarry lease No.182 has been changed by the Department of Mines and Geology as 704. That being so, I am allowing 6 I.A.No.8 only to this extent. The order rejecting other amendments is confirmed. The plaintiff is allowed to carry out amendment by changing quarry lease from 182 to 704 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.54897/13 does not press I.A.I/14 and seeks liberty to the petitioner to file an application for similar relief before the trial Court. The I.A.1/14 is disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed. All contentions are kept open.

With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE TL