Karnataka High Court
Smt.Geetha Chandrashekar vs Sri.Kantilal B Jain on 25 June, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2014
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH
House Rent Revision Petition 24 / 2014
Between
1 Smt Geetha Chandrashekar, 53 yrs
2 Mrs M C Poornima, 33 yrs
3 Ms M C Lavanya, 28 yrs
1-3 are represented by 4 as
Special power of attorney holder
4 Mr Sagar C Makkini, 33 yrs
1-4 are wife and children of late
M C Chandrashekar and are r/o
1068, II Floor, 25th Main
15th Main Cross, BSK II Stage
Bangalore 70 Petitioners
(By Sri Srikanth H, Adv.)
And
Sri Kantilal B Jain, 52 yrs
S/o Bhawarlal Jain
2
R/a # 19/D, 13th A Main
Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore
Also at: Manoj Bankers
Ground Floor, # 71 (Old # 39)
4th Cross, 14th Main
Dr Shivaram Karanth Road
Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore
By its Property - Kantilal B Jain Respondents
(By Sri S Gangadhara Aithal, Adv.)
This Revision Petition is filed under S.46 of the Karnataka Rent
Act, 1999 praying to set aside the order dated 1.2.2014 in HRC
119/2013 on IA by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
This Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the order passed on 1.2.2014 in HRC 119/2013 rejecting the application filed by them under O 6 R 17 r/w S.151, CPC.
Heard the counsel representing the parties. O 6 R 17 of CPC is clear on the aspect that no amendment shall be allowed after trial is commenced unless the court comes to the 3 conclusion that in spite of due diligence parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. However, it appears if strict interpretation is made, petitioners would not be entitled for any remedy.
Be that as it may, the fault of the advocate in not drafting the petition properly ultimately lead to an error in the petition and due diligence cannot be attributed to the party. Rather it is a casual approach by the advocate who has drafted the petition for which the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. With this reasoning, the order passed by the trial court rejecting the IA is set aside permitting the petitioners to amend the pleadings as sought for, by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- out of which, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the advocate who is representing the respondent and Rs.5,000/- to the party.
Revision petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
Judge An