Karnataka High Court
Siddaramappa S/O.Satappa S/O.Satappa ... vs Smt. Shantabai S/O.Gundappa Sugandhi, ... on 13 September, 2010
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WéPOSSO1 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 137! DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 a BEFORE _ oa THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Bs PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6! 5591/2010 (GM. CPC} Between: i, SIDDARAMAPPA, a 8/O.SATAPPA-ALAGU NDAGI AGE 65 YEARS». OCC BUS NESS, R/O. BAGALKOT. 2. MALLIKARGE JN, S/O. SIDDAPP A A LAC =U NDAGI AGE 32 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, RY /O-BAGALKOT DIST BAGALKOT, "3: DUAPKUMAR, SfOMUIJAYARAJ BETAL, AGE 30 YEARS, ~ OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BAGALKOT, * EIST BAGALKOT. 4. MAHESH, S/O.SIDDARAMAPPA ARABBI, . AGE 26 YEARS, . OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BAGALKOT ~ DIST BAGALKOT. PETITIONERS *. (BY SMT. PRABHAKAR A. KULKARNI, Advocate. } WP65501 10 SMT. SHANTABAI, W/O.GUNDAPPA SUGANDIET, AGE 69 BARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. BAGALKOTP, I 2. VENKAPPA S/O.GUNDAPPA SUGANDHI. AGE 40 YEARS, - OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O.BAC ALKOT, | Be DIST BAGALKOT. . RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIV) COURT, BAGALKOT, ON 1.A.NO.VIL DATED 7.2010 PASSED iN-O.S.NO.30/2009 (ANNEXURE-J}, AND ETC eo THE PE TTION, COMING _ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARI NG" THI IS DAY, THE COURT M ADE THE POLLOWING: ORDER
Che allenge inthis writ petition is to the order dated SF 2010 pas ssecs. by the court below rejecting |.A.No. VII. LA Novy TH was FS by the defendants/ petitioners herein under Order XIV Rule.S of CPC secking to frame an additional issue.
" h it was the case of the defendants that they had mt 1 £ Invested huge amount of Rs.10 to 15 lakhs for improvement of 4 the suif schedule property and as such, they were entitled to receive costs of such improvements from the plaintiffs. A ne issue was iramed in this regard, they sought for framing of OF. art Fe additional issue. This appli cation Was objected. by "the puainiilis/respondents herein. The trial Court has rejected. Ute writ petition is appheation. Aggrieved by the same,
3. [ have heard the «learned.Counsel for the petitioners and perused the material om.record:
sults one filed for ejectment of : . ts ; i e the de fendants/} petitioners from the suit schedule property. Tn the written sta temnent they h ave' contended that defendants 1 and 2 sta rtec thei new b anifess along with defendants 3 and | 4-after.optaining sanction from the plaintiffs by investing huge funds tothe « xte nt of Rs.10 to 15 lakhs. There is nothing in the written sta te sient to show that the said amount was spent ~ fer the improvement of the property with the consent of the " plecrital any counter claim made in the written 'siatement. in this background, the trial Court has rightly WPGSS0L 16 dismissed the application. [It is seen from the material on record that the application came to be filed after the clostire of the evidence of the defendants which amply demonstrates that. | the defendants are only interested in protracting "the proceedings. Such conduct om the' part ~ of ~ ihe deferidants/ petitioners cannot be encouraged,
5. I do not find any illegality Gr érror apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference in. this writ petition.
Hence, the wril petition is dismissed... he Ht Pi 4 P ban AOA boy Sib"