Karnataka High Court
Vithoba vs Bhimbai & Ors on 6 March, 2019
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B.Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI
W.P.No.201822/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Vithoba S/o Baliram More
Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Bhusnoor, Tq: Aland
Dist: Kalaburagi
... Petitioner
(By Sri Vinayak Apte, Advocate)
AND:
1. Bhimbai W/o Vithal Lawate
Age: 79 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Bhusnoor, Tq: Aland
Dist: Kalaburagi - 585 302
2. Ambika W/o Govind Lawate
Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Bhusnoor, Tq: Aland
Dist: Kalaburagi - 585 302
3. Sadashiv S/o Vithal Lawate
Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Bhusnoor, Tq: Aland
Dist: Kalaburagi - 585 302
2
4. Nagamma W/o Vijaykumar
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Bhusnoor, Tq: Aland
Dist: Kalaburagi - 585 302
5. Hanamanthrao S/o Vithal Lawate
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Bhusnoor, Tq: Aland
Dist: Kalaburagi - 585 302
... Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated
26.04.2018 as per Annexure-E passed in O.S.No.135/2013
on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Aland and reject
the application filed by the respondents U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC
(I.A.No.V) by allowing the Writ Petition.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of order dated 26.04.2018 passed on Interlocutory Application in O.S.No.135/2013 seeking amendment of plaint. Plaintiffs intend to make necessary amendment in the plaint with reference to 3 additional relief of declaration that the adoption deed is null and void and alternative relief of partition.
2. The Court below has considered factual aspect and framed a point for consideration - "Whether the plaintiffs have made out grounds to allow the proposed amendment", which has been answered in the affirmative while assigning the reasons read with a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of Ramesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 SAR (Civil) 342 which reads as under:
"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Application for amendment ordinarily the court must not refuse - The courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt an hyper-technical approach - Liberal approach should be general rule."
3. The above decision has been taken into consideration by the Court below for the purpose of allowing the plaintiffs' interlocutory application filed 4 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Hence the present petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that cause of action would be totally different and therefore Court below has not appraised the contentions of the petitioner in respect of consideration of amendment of plaint by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It was also contended that there is non-application of mind in allowing the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiffs.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court below has assigned reasons elaborately and so also considered number of decisions in respect of consideration of interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, particularly in the case of Ramesh Kumar Agarwal it was observed that the Courts while deciding application for amendment of prayers should not adopt a hyper technical approach and liberal 5 approach should be general rule. In view of the dictum laid down, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order dated 26.04.2018.
Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk Ct : RRJ