Karnataka High Court
Sri K S Krishnamurthy vs Smt Lakshmamma on 9 February, 2010
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
IN TREE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PATI THIS The Of) DAY OF FEBRUARY 4OLO Iie PORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA " WRIT PETITION NO.2489/2010 IGM-CPC) BETWEEN SRI K S KRISHNAMURTHY S/O K.L.SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. R/A VIDYANAGAR. KERE DURUGAMMANAKERI ; FO 8, SHIMOGA TQ. & DIST. . ee BEYEPFIONER (By Sri B M SIDDAPPA, ADV, FOR PETITIONER) AND 1 SMT LAKSHIMAMMA:, W/O CL. DUMMANNA © AGELS ABOLYP 82. YEARS, | R/O HOLEHANASAWADI VILLAGE, HOLEHANASAWADL POST. - SHIMOGA BIST. 05 20 GD LEELAVATHP W/O GANGADHARAPPA -- AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, "RYO GURUPURA EXTENSION, SHIMOGA 305, MBASAVARAJ S/O C.1L.DUMMANNA ~AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, ~t (OO 2ND CROSS. GANDIL BAZAR, PEND NALAPBA TIEMPLE. IMOGA IN / I SH / E RATHNAMMA W/O BASAVARAS AGED ABOUT SS YEARS, R/OF STH CROSS, NEAR DODDAMMA TIEMPLIE. vee HOSAMANKE EXTENSION. STUMOGA C.D.MAHENDRA KUMAR S/O C.K. DUMMANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. oe R/OF 28ND CROSS. GANDEL BAZAR. BEHIND NAGAPPA TEMPLE SHIMOGA Oo C.D.GIRIIAMMA W/O.C: rahe GALHARAPPA | AGED ABOUT SO YEARS. (2 R/OF JAIL CIR SLELROAD.™. | BY THE SIDE OF LAKSHMI TALKIES, © SHIMOGA . me C.D eLOKESH. S/O.C 4K DUMMANNA AGED: ABOUT 48 YEARS. /R/OF HOLEHANASA' IADE VILLAGE, HOLE HANASAWADY POST. SH IME IGA DIST = D GOP INS ATE S/O CLL. DUMMANNA OO OAGED AMOUTAG YEARS, RYOP HOLEHMANASWADI VILLAGE. " HOLEHANASAWADE POST, " OSHIMOGA DISTT. ad o, KS MANJUSATH S/O KL. SHDODAPPA AGH: 57 YEARS. TYPIST, KARNATABRA POW [cis CORPORATION, LINGANAMAKRI. JOG FALLS. SAGARA TQ.. 9. K.S.CHANDIRASHHEBKATS S/O KIL STDDAPRA AGED ABOUT SS YRAIS. AUTO DIRIVIET. VIDYANAGAR, KERE DURUGAMMA KERE SHIMOGA ~ RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is liled under Ariictes 226 & 297 of the Constitution of India. praving to quash the offer nasser by the Ladd. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.). Davanagere. in OS Node JAG an AL dated 1F.9.2009 vide Anrexure-D. lay, the Court mace This Petition Gommod onder prefindaary hearing this ¢ the lollowing: ORDER
The petitiorer/déferrdant No.3 in OS No.44/2067 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr: Divn.j al Davanagere, is before this Court, praying for quashing the order dated, 12.9. 2009 passed on HAUL in the above-said suit at Annexure-D. 2 Learned Counsel ler the petiioner submits that on 18.6.2009 while reir Counsel for feadinggs evidence, il was a the defendants were instructing tf noticed that om accourmt of filing written statement in hurry, they did not properly insiruct their Council tp file proper written statement and the trial Court erred in rejecting the applicatian: secking permission to amend the a bs SO * .
wriftter) Stateient.
3. Respondent Nos.} to 8 herein are the planifis in O'S MN oA 44. 19 07:
They have fled a suit against Lie present peunoner.atid respondent Nos.9 'and 10 herein for dectaration that the plaintits are-gwners iE pOSSESSION of the suit schedule property and also sought for permanent injunction against the defendants from dispossessing the plain "ills from "4 he-su sehecdile property The suit schedule property: is janicl reasiing @ acres $6 Guntas fout of 6 acres 33 guntas) on the couthers aidenal Sy Mefencarnt No.S viz.. the ei. The defendant has denied the presen peliiroer, nas Fleet ah write TY plaint allegations. The deic hagas liayi aken the contention that there is no cause of action forthe sui vi alter lapse of 42 years is barred by limitation. "nn px caepepth 3 of (he @ritten statement. ihe defendants have taken ihe contention? (hat fhe ientane father-K L Siddappa. who had faith on the he paid a sum of _ f
-
mo vendor (Ci, Ouaruarariyret) at schechile proper Rs 4.080/for thevpurpose of purchasing crilire suit land. Tut. the sale deed Ney orate i say ne on ise miivy im reaoee VP Oo aerec TF omens Lavin token all the ras WCC Cxe Sule) GVily rEespeel OF o aeres fe QUTHOS, PiVITED La €@1i ci tie . Hecessary confention in Cie wrifen staternent, the proposed amendment creferaiing fhe sate facts anid) CIPCLUTIST NCES of the case is unnecessary. Apart fronpthal the petitioner has nol placed material on record to show that he was
--_--
Saat contentions while Tiling the written diligent enough im taking statement. The trial Court. on appreciation of the material placed on record and the proviso io Order Vi Rule PP of © PC. came io a canchusion that there was no merit in the amendment application anc rejected the sante. Lsee no legality or mlirrnity i tbe impugned order, L. In the result, Lhe Petition fails andate: same.is hereby dismissed. uo ngs % / JUDG