Karnataka High Court
Sri. P. Venkataramanappa vs Sri. C Narasimhamurthy on 18 December, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2435
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.50098/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
S/O LATE PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT AGARA,
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
24TH MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 102. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. C.NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O P. CHIKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.15, 25TH 'A' MAIN,
AGARA, MARISWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
2. SRI. C.MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
S/O P.CHIKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.95, 25TH 'A' MAIN,
AGARA, MARISWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
3. SMT. C. SOWBHAGYA @ BHAGYA,
W/O L. SRINIVASA,
D/O P. CHIKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.221, 6TH BLOCK,
2
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
4. SMT. V. LEELAVATHI,
W/O RAMALINGAIAH,
D/O P. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
25TH 'A' MAIN, AGARA,
SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
5. SMT. V. ROOPA @ RUPA,
D/O P. VENKATESH,
W/O V. RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.10/5,
DR.RAJ KUAMR ROAD,
AGARA, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 102.
6. SRI. K. VEERAPPA,
S/O CHENNAPPA KARDKAL,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT HAMPASAGARA,
2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS,
VINOBHANAGAR,
DAVANAGERE - 577 006.
7. SMT. AVA M.D. MARTIN,
W/O D.A. MARTIN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.210,
SHELTER APARTMENTS,
NO.15, PALMGROVE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 017. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 22.10.2018 PASSED BY 10TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
(CCH-26) IN OS NO.1950/2014 IN ALLOWING I.A.NO.5 FILED BY
THE PLAINTIFF NO.1 AND 2 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC
VIDE ANNEXURE - A.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the trial Court by which an application preferred by the respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "Code" for short) for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.
4. The facts giving raise to filing of the present writ petition briefly stated are that on 10.03.2014, the respondents filed their suit seeking the relief of partition as well as declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is 4 null and void. The petitioner filed written statement on 16.12.2014 in which inter alia it was pleaded that in the earlier suit seeking relief of partition, a settlement was recorded between the parties - defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are brothers. However, at the stage of cross- examination of plaintiffs on 10.08.2017, that is nearly after a period of three years, an application for amendment was filed, by which the following reliefs were sought to be incorporated in the plaint:
"Declare that the sale deed dated 08.02.2001, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 registered in the office of the sub-registrar Bommanahalli (Jayanagara), in Book-I, as document bearing No.9484, at pages 1 to 8 in volume No.4778 on 12.02.2001; as not binding to the extent of the share of the plaintiffs.
Iia) Declare that the sale deed dated 09.11.1990 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4, registered in the 5 office of the sub-registrar, Bangalore South, in Book-I, as document No.2237/1990-91 at page No.187 to 193 in volume 3294; as not binding to the extent of the share of the plaintiffs.
Iic) Declare that the compromise petition dated 19.03.2002 recorded on the file of the city civil judge in O.S.No.5189/2001 as not binding on the plaintiffs"
5. The trial Court by the impugned order has allowed the application for amendment inter alia on the ground that the proposed amendment neither changes the cause of action nor the nature of suit and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that even from the averments made in the application for amendment, it could be deciphered that the plaintiffs had known about the earlier settlement in the year 2014 and they had filed an application for 6 proposed amendment after a period of three years. Thus, the proposed amendment was hit by Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Code.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in the case of 'RAJKUMAR GURAWARA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS. S.K. SARWAGI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER', 2004 (14) SCC 364 has held that an application for amendment cannot be rejected on the ground of delay alone and a just and proper amendment can be introduced at any stage for the purpose of determining the controversy involved in the suit. It appears that the trial Court with a view to avoid multiplicity of the litigation has allowed the application for amendment. Undoubtedly, there has been delay in filling the application for amendment for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered. However, this 7 Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court even though the same suffers from illegality, until and unless it causes grave or irreparable prejudice to the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. (See: 'JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS', (2010) 9 SCC 385 and 'SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL', (2010) 8 SCC 329).
8. Therefore, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the 8 Constitution of India. Needless to state that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an additional written statement and to take up a plea that the reliefs, which have been incorporated by way of amendment are barred by limitation. Needless to state that the trial Court shall frame an issue in this regard and shall decide the same in accordance with law. Since the civil suit is pending since 2014, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the proceedings in the suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP