T Umesh Rao S/O T Ishwarappayya vs N K Jagannivas Rao S/O Nattoji ... on 23 August, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

T Umesh Rao S/O T Ishwarappayya vs N K Jagannivas Rao S/O Nattoji ... on 23 August, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 23" DAY OF AUGUST, 2oIo_"'»Ag_

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.Ni.ggAv%ENuGo'PA'LAEGowDA:' * > 

WRIT PETITION NO.2411V;8/2%;i'1f: (GM-*c}PCj' 

BETWEEN:

T.Umesh Rao,
S/o T.Ishwarappayya,,..
Aged about 62 years,'   .   A
Mechanic, Aravind Auto'Ihobi'ies}g} _ V' V
Near Sri Mahalingeshwaiféi Tempfe   ., 
Main Road, Puttut, _'  _  - 
D.K. -- 574 2;o1.';;;.I_i.'    'A  

.. .  'V _ 2'   ..PETITIoNER

(By Sri__Mg,S'ud:liaVls;aij_i~'a:E;  
AND: 1 'A  V2 

N.K.Jagannivas"Ra"o," , 
S/o. Nattoji, Kr'ishrIay~ya',<v'
Aged about 5'4,years,'
La.hL. QwiIer and Advocate,

 R/at N'e.ttoji'=lfiouse,
.8app_a"l»§.ge,['Puttur Kasba village,

I  Po pu::uI:--.5:r4 201 (D.K.)

A -- - :RESPONDENT
(By-. SrE.._°A.l<eshava Bhat, Adv.)

'i'h:is petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

A  the"~Constitution of India praying to quash the Order dated
"A,9."7*.t2O1O on LA. No,7 in O.S.No.43/07 on the file of the

Prl. Civil Judge (}r.Dn.) Puttur, D.K. vide Annexure ---- A to

 " ~-the WP.



This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the foiiowing.

QRDER

Respondent / plaintiff has instituted suit againslt'~~tvhe

petitioner/ defendant for relief of recovery   

arrears of rent, mesne profits and...in_ciden"ta'l"reliefsv.'_'..V'l"h_e' 

petitioner/ defendant entered ap:'pea;r_'arrt:etf'oeJ.nsei

and filed written statemen_t"'-~.on l4.7.o7.% "JPA'l«ai'n.ti.ff'i filedf'

rejoinder statement on  'tissues.__haA\r§ing been
framed, piaintiff has Ta.ffi.da?yi;t levidertce. When the suit

was at the stage of cro'ss'~-efxarn.ii'tation.toﬁjF§w--1, I.A. 7 was

filed bythefl§E!fentiVa'i1tl:'un"derA55'ft 17 read with 5.153. cpc

' seeking. pe.rn1issi'o'n~olfi'theflT:"ial Court to amend the written

staternentfto_"inco--rpAcrateV an additionai plea as para 12(a).

 Tfieaap-piieationuwasopposed by the plaintiff. The Trial

 CVo_ui"f::haV'vin§:"noticed the stage of the suit i.e., cross-

e3:a'n1inVat'ior1*of PW~i, has found no merit in the application

 and has'1~dismissed the same. This writ petition is directed

 ad_5ﬂ1st the said order. y

I .-



2. Heard the Eearned counsei on both sides and

perused the writ papers.

3. It is true that issues have been  

piaintiff has not filed affidavit evidence,  

O 6 is certainly attracted. After'.co:nnrnenceme,nt, 

prayer for amendment  i.'piead.i.ng_:  be"?

considered unless it vi,s...proved--xtij*at*despite"d.iJ$i?djiigence,
the proposed plea cou"l'd'A'r;'ot"hVai~je  earlier. The
Court below.' hiasr no-:tVV'VV'V'second element,
whether 'V the part of the
appiicgz/i-t..  the first element in the

proviso to R  ejcpic;  '

---.4: '4"Al,lv"'ar'nendments which do not work out

.  injustice toithe, other side and which are necessary for

 determ,i'i*i.atioV'n_.of the reai questions in controversy may

have to considered and after examination of the fact

 situatieri', if permissible, shall have to be aiiowed. The

x"--.,Vpetitioner ~ defendant has contended that, the written

Vh   ..._.statement was hastiiy filed in view of the limitation placed

/.1



under R 1 of O 8 CPC for fiiing of the written statement.

He has proposed an additionai piea which appearsV.tVo~.._t_)evan

aiternate plea. Keeping in view 

circumstances of the case, since the def_eh'da--nt .is"-ehtitied' 

to have latitude in the matter ovf,ple'ading;»._i'n~ 

for deciding the real question':.._Vin co'ntro\1ersy'A Abzetvwween 

parties, the proposed can he It is
true that on account o'f..ti'1e' iiiinsg' :of""t'iVz:e:'>'appiication, there is
deiay in disposai of the"suitan~dgA.:p_i_a.invtiVft".is'thus prejudiced.
The piaintiff   for causing
of delayhi/"~.tahe (iourt can be directed to
dispose of: I In the said view of the
matter,'ét~hge  in my opinion is irrationai and
hepngﬂ §nterfe';-elnce es: cavlied for.
in . pass the foilowingz

ORDER

Wiritpietition is aliowed.

Ivrripugned order stands quashed.

' Prayer in LA. 7 stands aiiowed. The defendant is 'T -i-"permitted to incorporate the proposed amendment in the \/ 4"' written statement by paying cost of Rs.3,000/-- __to the plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today.f..l_Ulpon the cost being paid and the amended copy_.'of statement being furnished, the p_la.in__tiff i_sat" filvelh reply within a period of oneV.Aweeii<'; additional issue with reg'ar_d---.,..to 'alternate-.:vlpl_e'a~l...c'asting'at burden of proof on the defenyd_aRn~t__s'h.all be "ra.i,sged.l§and PW--1 is at liberty to lead additgioniahl ieyid"eVn:ce'iw_ith regard to the additional plea arid the"add:i'tio"na_li._isslie..: if ' PW--__1_'j_cros.s--e><ayrn'inecl: by the defendant within'__o_ne"'~.rn'ont:h_oifadvditioinawlievidence of PW--1 being filed. :'--,_Th.e« deflendantgl'shall---!.. plead and complete his side of evidence"l-witlhivnllfﬁ_rnonths from the date the plaintiff closes his4;;§:lideA.of evVi'deVnce. A:The Trial Court is directed to dispose 0f_.vtl'.e_v.l"si4it:'within 2 months from the date the triai of the sU'it__is V"Co2ifn.ple,.te..

W:r.it*p"etition stands allowed accordingly. 351/-

IUEGE f'"sac* ('J1

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court