Karnataka High Court
Sri V N Krishna Rao @ N K Vijay Rao vs M/S Trunkey Constructions Pvt Ltd on 17 December, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
& rE ra mo Are rm ' "ae Te OP ae RE bal Ld ies bet a0? aay Qe Gn COURT OF RABRNATABRA AT DANG ALORE : TICE B. 8.PA ui a wer nt UT KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C¢ ee 4 pel i oo a bp bo mC ' Tee eer 3 fe rl ae H tf oa tf "ow a hat ag ng > ine eee 7 on Go ft o WRIT PETITION NO.10974).300 BOM spe _ . PETTTIONER vd, i, LIT! MAIN ROAD SWARAM, BANGALOI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN UNKEY CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD PE-BGOOOSS ANTS NIA AGH 7 DIRECTOR ees TeaT ee B SRE. T.MADHUSUDHAN Leer CPS Free yore Te ra Hel REP. BY PTS OFFICIAL LEQ WIDATOR PION ELE HUGH CO URT OF RARNATARKA og Terr ek Perna 22 &% BOWING, 4TH FLOOR KENDRIVA SADANA, KORAMANGALA BAN GALOR be EO O34, IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT UF KAKNAIAKA HIGH CUURI UF KRAKINAIABA MHP UUUR WP RRNA Tr eae® fad pe oh Fuga E be MR. KUMAR SUBRAMANYA ar SITE NOLS, APE NO.302 H MAIN ROAD, 17T 'A' CROSS MALLES SHWARAN BAN GALORE-S00055, ta MES. RANCHAN BANE RIEE TTE NO.13, APT.NO. 20: AND 201° 172 MAIN ROAD, 17TH (A CROSS - MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-36005 oy MR, SHAR KAR. V. SAAI! DAS P SITE NO. 13,A4P7.N C204 Be He. 304 Lin MAIN ROAD, 177% pay CROSS MALLE SHWARAM - BANGALGH eae 560085. . _ foun ma fe i ZAVISHANKAR : 13. 1 MAIN ROAD, 177 cA CROSS JALLESHWARAM Eb "BANGALORE-560058. ME JAHARLAL MOUBRHERMJUEE * ge wegTgs gen 5% . Sk Efe | - 2 i oh 1T% MAIN ROAD, 177F 'A' CROSS MALLE SHWARAM BANGALORE-S60035. MRS. NALINI KUMAR AT SITE N.S, ATS BO SOS 1278 MAGN Re ROAD 'A CROSS MALLES HWARAM RANGA LOR E-SGOOISS., In MONT UP RAKNATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA tiiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C( : Spe gE a, MES. LAK Le PPE ar ik at ire gs BANGALC 10. MES. BHARATH MUKHERJEE At SITE NOLS, APT NO@08 LTH MAIN ROAD, 177 '4! CROSS MALLE SHWARAM | oo BANGALORE-S60055 SOT 1 oO AERVED a UNRE PRESENTED iG. BOT ; DISP PENSED WI TH) T PIS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 1B CONSTITUT PON OF TN TOIA, ANNEXURE-A ORDERS OF THE vu uD aE anata CCH 28 ; UBD BER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF = or BIST J POLY 2008 ANT TRIS W ee AND PRAVING = APSE ST XIV ¢ ADDL. iS WRIT PETITION _SOMING 5 ey FOR BAL hr LA AY, THE Application fled by the pentioner umder Order 6 "Rule if of CAC in LA.Ne.S seeking amencment of the glamt is rejected by the Court below. Aggrieved by the ty "Tk, ee Bg i BAER Tras =
arlorrigy holder of piaintvls it wes contended that th:
IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KAKNAIAKA Mitr &! fj hagl Hie ght it ka ok a * Shel OS No 2500/2004 seeking ecting the cet endant to. band ye we ds cath ee Gy wt toy gs eae ge red 2 dey at sngehing over posseseion of the auit schedule proper ty.
3. Before the evidences could _coranience . the og = t® lect ari applica ation seeking, ce mutd en .
inti Ww ranted te ifirediice es ty 1 AS 2B dai Suomuat pleadings to the the 5 pinintif iftteric'e to att ' sig ort Tarra te shiling certain subsequent to disclose how the ithe 'delercient's was illegal The the arnercment.
4, The Court below has refused the amendment bolting theatin the affideawt [ed by the power of of proposed amendment waa principally a question of law acid hence pleadings which pertain to question of law &. a, meed mot be permitted. In this background, the ret SMT MOF KARINAIARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C\ Cs =, Agsert trem tne above cheerveation, there is noe application of sumed to the nature of the ame endine ert aougnt are] the nature of the nerration of subs quent ¢ everiis thet ere sought te be-rttroduced by way of. atmencment, Since the Court below nes not epplied its rumul to the nature of the < amendment, in my considered view, the mgtier, : for reconsideration. Particularly because, if is a pre fie! amendment which i@ sougnt.ty fhe ols antith wherein he intervis to introduce Cartan. avermionts 'regarding the subsequent evetite aawell, : Fithout expres seing any opinion on the merits of the application, this writ petition is allowed setting aside _ the order passed by tne Court below with a direction to re-hear the aprbcealion and cass a freeh order.