Karnataka High Court
Smt Janaki Bai vs Smt Chandra Bai on 10 April, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
~4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10% DAY OF APRIL, 2012. : BEFORE 7 . THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE §.ABDUL NAZEER WRIT PETITION No.4290/2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: i. SMT JANAKI BAL | " W/O LATE HALOJI2AO ~ AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 5°) R/O.MARASHETTYHALL! VILLAGE» BHADRAVATHI TALUK 2. SRI MOHAK RAO | S/O.LATE HALOJIRAO - AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS | 3. SRI KUM ARA RAO | 7 : 'S/O.LATE HALOJERAO. AGED ABOUT 30 YES RS. 4. SMT SAR QUA BAL os W/O.LATE HALOJIRAO . AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ' R4O MARIDIBBA, BARANDUR, BHADRAVATHI TALUK. ~ 5. SMT LAKSHMI BAI ) D/G.LATE KRISHNOJIRAO . W7O.MALLARIRAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O.N T ROAD, _ NEAR BHARATH FOUNDARY *. SHIMOGA CITY 0. SRI SHIVAJI RAO S/O. KRISHNOJIRAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS -2- MARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SRI RUDROJI RAO S/O.SHIVAJIRAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O MARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK on SMT RENUKA BAI W/0O.LATE VISHWANATHA D/O.SHIVAJIRAO a0 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ©. ™. R/O.MARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK me SMT THULAJA BAI -- W/0O.DHARMOJI RAO « AGED ABOLIT 70 YEARS: . a R/O.MARASHETTYHALLE: VILLAGE ° BHADRAVATHI TALUK oe SHIMOGA. DISTRICT . SRLRANGOJ-RAQ. DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS 10la) § SMT SUBHADRA BAL" W/O.RANOGOJT RAG. AGEL ABOUT 55 YEARS » OCC HOUSE HOLD i 108) CHANDRASGEKARA S/O.RANGOJI RAO » ACEL. ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST 10(e >) NAGA RAHA RAO S/O.RANOGOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS », OCC AGRICULTURIST ~.10(d) MEENAKSHI BAI W/O.MANJUNATHA D/O.RANGOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD R/O.HAKKI PIKKI CAMP, CHICKMATTI, SHIVAMOGA TALUK 10(e) ROOP BAI S/O.RANGOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS -- OCC HOUSEHOLD 10() GEETHA W/O.NAGARAJA 12. D/O.RANGOJI RAO ; AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD LEGAL HEIR No.!0{a) TO: (cq) > AND 10(e) & 10(f) ARE ALL | RESIDENT OF MARASHET?YHALL 1 VILLAGE, BHADRAVATH TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRI oT ": SRI NAGENDRA RAG S/O.LATE DHARMOSI RAO" AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O.MARASHETTYHALLI ' VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK.. SHIMOGA Di STRIC T™ SRI LAKSHMANA RAO S/O.LATE DHARMOJI RAO -. AGED ABOUT 50. YEARS R/O MARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK ~. SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT SRI SUDARSHANA RAO DEAD BY IS LEGAL HEIRS SMT SHOBHA BAI S/O.SUDARSHANRAO "AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD R/O.MARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT 14, 16. AND SRI ESHWARA RAO S/O.LATE DHARMOJIRAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS VIDYANAGAR EXTN NEAR HOSPOTAL, HARIHAR TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT SMT PARVATHI BAI -- W/0.VENKOBARAO RAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O.NAVULE EXTEN SHIMOGA CITY SRI NAGARAJA RAO S/O.RUDROJIRAQ oo AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS). MARASHETTYHALL! VILLAGE. BHADRAVATHI TALUK (By Sri SV. PRAKASH, ADV.) SMT. CHANDRA BAL W/O. MANJUNATHA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS: R/AT.MALAVAGGPPA EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA TOW -.. SMT THILIYAMBA W/O:-KUPPUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDENT OF KALLIHAL _ NEAR SCHOOL BHADPVATHI .. PETITIONERS .. 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 ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE .& JMFC BHADRAVATHI DATED 10.01.2012 IN O.S. NO.167/2001 PASSED ON LA.NO.21 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E TO THE ~~ WRIT PETITION. ~5. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOW ING: ORDER
The defendants in O.S.No.167/200i on the file of the | . , Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) at Bhadravathi, have assailed the order on I.A.No.21 dated 10.01.2012. whereby the court below has allowed the application for amendient ot the plaint filed by the 1st respondent/ plaintiff,
2. The contention: of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'the. suit" - is in the final stage. The amendment: sought tor is cort ection of the description of the suit schedute property, whic ch is not permissible in law. I am taken thi ough the order. of the court below. The court below has assigned cogent 1 reasons for allowing the application. In cny opinion: the amendment is necessary to decide the real oe question: in controversy and it does not change the nature of the suit Wor the cause of action. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/