Karnataka High Court
Sri M D Naraseeyappa vs Smt Lakshmamma on 27 November, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.44979/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri.M.D.Naraseeyappa,
S/o.Dhalappa,
Aged about 84 years,
R/o.Raghavendra Colony,
Madhugiri Town-572132,
Tumkur District.
2. Sri.Dhalappa,
Aged about 49 years,
S/o.Sri.M.D.Naraseeyappa,
R/o.Dharga Road, Medharahatti,
Madhugiri Town-572 132,
Tumkur District.
3. Smt.Lalithamma,
Aged about 49 years,
D/o.Sri.M.D.Naraseeyappa,
R/o.Medharahatti Darga Road,
Madhugiri Town-572 132,
Tumkur District.
4. Smt.Jayamma,
Aged about 49 years,
D/o.Sri M.D.Naraseeyappa,
R/o.Raghavendra Colony,
2
Madhugiri Town-572 132,
Tumkur District. ...Petitioners
(By Sri.G.S.Balagangadhar, Adv.)
AND:
1. Smt.Lakshmamma,
W/o.Late K.C.Thippesiddaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
At Present, R/o.Maranagave,
Tiptur Taluk-572 201,
Tumkur District.
2. Smt.Gangamma,
Aged about 57 years,
W/o.Late C.Hanumantharayappa,
R/o.Maruthi Krupa Nagannapalya,
Sira Gate, Tumkur Town-572 101.
3. Sri.P.L.Ramakrishna,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o.Sri Byrappa, R/o.Parvathinagar,
Laggere Main Road,
Peenya Post,
Bangalore-560 058. ...Respondents
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India praying to quash the orders passed by
the Learned Addl.Civil Judge & JMFC, Madhugiri, in
O.S.No.285/08 Dated 29.09.12 on IA No.22 filed by the
Def/Petitioners U/O 6 Rule 17 R/W Sec 151 of CPC vide
Annx-F as the same is impugned perverse and capricious and
is liable to be set aside.
3
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
Day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the Order dated 29.09.2012, passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.285/2008 on I.A. No.22.
3. By the impugned Order, the Trial Court has rejected I.A.No.22 for amendment of the written statement.
4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners has filed this writ petition.
5. The respondents have filed suit in O.S.No.285/2008 for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the parties have led evidence. At the stage of arguments, the second petitioner has filed I.A.No.22 for 4 amendment of the written statement. The Trial Court has rejected the application. Therefore, this writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the second petitioner wanted to amplify the defence already taken and thereafter, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
7. I have carefully considered by submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The suit is for partition and separate possession. The parties have led evidence. Partial partition is pleaded and issue is also framed. At the stage of arguments, the second petitioner has filed application for amendment of the written statement to contend that the suit not maintainable for partial partition. The Trial Court taking into consideration that the application 5 is belated and issue is raised regarding partial partition has rejected the application. I do not find any error or illegality in it. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in the writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snc*