Karnataka High Court
Sri M Jayarama Reddy S/O M Nagappa Reddy vs Sri K Shiva Reddy S/O Picha Reddy on 13 February, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.42006/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SRI M JAYARAMA REDDY
S/O M NAGAPPA REDDY, 63 YEARS
CONSULTING ENGINEER AND BUSINESSMAN
D/O NO 1702/1, MOTHI DODDAPPA LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE-577 001. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M R RAJAGOPAL, ADV.)
AND :
1. SRI K SHIVA REDDY
S/O PICHA REDDY, 76 YEARS
D/O NO 549, 13TH CROSS
K.T. JAMBANNA NAGARA
DAVANAGERE 577002
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
(a) SMT SHIVAMMA, 75 YEARS,
W/O LATE K SHIVA REDDY
(b) KOTESHWARA REDDY
S/O LATE K SHIVA REDDY, 43 YEARS
(c) SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY
S/O LATE K SHIVA REDDY, 39 YEARS
(d) SMT LAXMI DEVI, 45 YEARS
W/O P VENKATA REDDY
2
(e) SMT UMAMESHWARI, 41 YEARS
W/O P VENKATARAMANA REDDY
ALL ARE R/O NO 549, 13TH CROSS
K T JAMBANNA NAGARA
DAVANAGERE-577002
(f) SMT NAGAVENI, 36 YEARS
W/O RAJAREDDY
C/O MARSHALL INDUSTRIES
18/115, KAMALANAGARA,
DILSUK NAGAR, HYDERABAD
ANDHRA PRADESH-50030
2. SMT B MANGAMMA, 41 YEARS
W/O B VEMA REDDY
R/O 3672/A SRI HAMSA
10TH MAIN MCC B BLOCK
DAVANAGERE-577002. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A C BALARAJ FOR R1(a-f); SRI N K SIDDESWARA, ADV.
FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER AT ANNEXURE-K & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for parties.
2. The learned trial judge has accepted the additional written statement without considering the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The subsequent application filed by the plaintiff under Section 114 and under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, 3 to review the order has been dismissed. Therefore, plaintiff is before this court.
3. Under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, written statement or additional written statement can be filed only when it is required by the court. The court may permit the parties to file rejoinder or counterclaim. The application is filed to circumvent provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The learned trial judge without noticing these facts has accepted the additional written statement contrary to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC.
4. Therefore, the petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The second defendant may take recourse to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as permissible by law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-