Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M A Gunashekar vs Smt Muthamma on 17 March, 2014

Author: Mohan .M.Shantanagoudar

Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar

                              1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF MARCH 2014

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

           Writ Petition No.55161/2013(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI M.A. GUNASHEKAR
S/O SRI ANNAMALAI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A NO.1/1, KEMPANNA GARDEN
DODDIGUTNA, COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560005

                                        ..Petitioner

(By Sri T.N. Vishwanath, Adv., )

AND :

  1. SMT. MUTHAMMA
     W/O LATE L MUNIYELLAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     R/A POLICE LINGAMMA COMPOUND
     NEAR ARCHANA PROVISION STREET
     2ND MAIN, IMDEHALLI
     BANGALORE-560066

  2. SRI M. SRINIVASA
     S/O LATE L MUNIYELLAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     R/A POLCIE LINGAMMA COMPOUND
     NEAR ARCHANA PROVISION STREET
                               2



  2ND MAIN, IMDEHALLI
  BANGALORE-560066

3. SRI M. VEDAVATHY
   D/O LATE L. MUNIYELLAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
   R/A POLICE LINGAMMA COMPOUND
   NEAR ARCHANA PROVISION STREET
   2ND MAIN, IMDEHALLI
   BANGALORE-560066

4. SMT . M. MANJULA
   D/O LATE L MUNIYELLAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
   R/A POLICE LINGAMMA COMPOUND
   NEAR ARCHANA PROVISION STREET
   2ND MAIN, IMDEHALLI
   BANGALORE-560066

5. SMT. M. SUMADEVI
   D/O LATE L MUNIYELLAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
   R/A POLICE LINGAMMA COMPOUND
   NEAR ARCHANA PROVISION STREET
   2ND MAIN, IMDEHALLI
   BANGALORE-560066

6. SRI. A. RAMDAS
   S/O LATE LINGAPPA @ ANNAIAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
   R/A NO.1, PSK NAIDU ROAD
   KEMPANNA GARDEN
   COX TOWN, DODDIGUNTE
   BANGALORE-560005

7. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
   W/O SRI A RAMDAS
   AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
   R/A NO.1, PSK NAIDU ROAD
   KEMPANNA GARDEN
                                  3



     COX TOWN, DODDIGUNTE
     BANGALORE-560005

  8. SRI KANTHARAJ
     S/O SRI A RAMDAS
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     R/A NO.1, PSK NAIDU ROAD
     KEMPANNA GARDEN
     COX TOWN, DODDIGUNTE
     BANGALORE-560005

  9. SMT. VARALAKSHMI
     D/O SRI A RAMDAS
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     R/A NO.1, PSK NAIDU ROAD
     KEMPANNA GARDEN
     COX TOWN, DODDIGUNTE
     BANGALORE-560005

  10. SMT. NEELAVATHI
      D/O SRI. A. RAMDAS
      AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
      R/A NO.1, PSK NAIDU ROAD
      KEMPANNA GARDEN
      COX TOWN, DODDIGUNTE
      BANGALORE-560005

  11. SRI. A. SHANKAR
      S/O ANNAMALAI
      AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
      R/A NO.11, G MUNIYAPPA
      GARDEN, PSK NAIDU ROAD
      DODDIGUNTE, COX TOWN
      BANGALORE-560004


                                               ..Respondents
(By, Sri Vittala Shetty P., Adv., for R-1-5;
     Notice to R-6 to R-11 dispensed with)
                                4




     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
Order dated 24.6.2013 passed on I.A. No. 22 in O.S. No.
5832/2004 on the file of the XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bangalore vide Annexure-E, etc..

      This Writ 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 for amendment of the written statement.

2. The petitioner herein is defendant NO.6 in the suit filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein. Both the sides have addressed their evidence and the matter is posted for final arguments. At that stage, I.A. No.22 is filed for amendment of the written statement, which is rightly rejected by the Court below.

5

3. The petitioner wants to add 14 more paragraphs in the written statement at the fag end of the trial. He wants to make a new case altogether and wants to overcome the earlier pleadings made by him. In view of the same, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application for amendment. Hence no interference is called for.

Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Gss/-