Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajamma vs Sri Savandaiah @ Rajanna on 13 October, 2014
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NOs.47004-47005 of 2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT RAJAMMA
W/O DORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT ALATHURU VILLAGE,
CHIKKAIANA CHATRA HOBLI,
MYSORE-570 005.
REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER
BABU PRASAD.D ... PETITIONER
(By SRI D.S.SHIVANAND, ADV. FOR SRI M V HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
1 SRI SAVANDAIAH @ RAJANNA
S/O LATE S. PUTTASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O VAJAMANGALA VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-570 005.
2 SRI. SUBBANNA
S/O LATE S. PUTTASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
STAMP VENDOR,
R/O. NO.58, 2ND CROSS,
BUDDHA MARGA,
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT,
MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-570 005.
2
3 SRI. SOMANNA
S/O LATE S. PUTTASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
STAMP VENDOR
R/O NO.27A, SHANTHI MARGA,
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT,
MYSORE-570 005.
4 SRI. DORESWAMY
S/O LATE S. PUTTASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
STAMP VENDOR,
R/O VAJAMANGALA VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
PIN CODE:.570 005.
5 SRI MURTHY @ RAJASHEKAR MURTHY
S/O LATE S. PUTTASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
STAMP VENDOR,
R/O NO.48, 2ND CROSS,
BUDHA MARGA,
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT,
MYSORE-570 005.
6 SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O THUMMANERALE,
CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-571 301.
7 SMT. LOKAMMANNI
W/O HONNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O NO. 188, 5TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS, SIDDARTHA LAYOUT,
MYSORE-570 005.
8 SMT. PREMA
W/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
3
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O ALATHUR HUNDI,
CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
NANJANGUD-570 005.
MYSORE DISTRICT.
9 SMT. PRAMILA
W/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O NO. 27A, SHANTHI MARGA,
SIDDARTHA LAYOUT,
MYSORE-570 005.
10 SMT. AKKAMAHADEVAMMA
W/O P. NAGAPPA,
R/O ALLATUR VILLAGE,
CHIKKAIANA CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 005.
11 SRI. RAJAKUMAR
S/O MARISWAMY,
R/O ALAGAIANA HUNDI,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-570 005.
12 SRI. P. NAGAPPA
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA,
R/O ALLATUR VILLAGE,
CHIKKAIANA CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 301.
13 SRI. JAWARAPPA
S/O LATE GOPAL,
R/O VAJMANGALA VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-570 005.
14 SMT. PARAWATHAMMA
W/O MALLANNA,
4
R/O VAJMANGALA VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-570 005.
15 SRI. A.G. RAJANNA
S/O GURUMALLAPPA,
R/O ALLATUR VILLAGE,
CHIKKAIANA CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-570 001.
16 SRI. R. VEERESH
S/O RAJASHEKAR,
R/O NO.4, K. LINGAIAH ROAD,
K. LINGAIAH COLONY,
NAZARBAD, MYSORE-570 005.
17 SIR. T.V. DORE
S/O T.T. VEERABHADRA SHETTY,
R/O TOTTAVALU & BASAVAPATNA
VILLAGE, ARAKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-573201. ... RESPONDENTS
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DT.19.7.14, PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDL.
SR.CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE IN OS.NO.160/2002, AS PER ANN-N
BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.7.2014 passed in O.S.No.160/2002. The impugned order is at Annexure-N to the petitions. The said applications were filed in the disposed of suit in O.S.No.160/2002. By the applications, the plaintiff had sought amendment of the plaint and decree to incorporate the property which has been described in the application filed under Section 152 and 153 R/w Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The said applications are at Annexures-J & K to the petitions.
2. The trial court after taking note of the same has dismissed the applications since it is of the opinion that the amendment cannot be permitted at this stage. While arriving such conclusion, the trial court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner had filed similar applications before the High Court in RFA No.2130/2006 and High Court had rejected the said applications. The order passed by the High Court is 6 available at Annexures-F & H, whereby two applications which were similar to the nature as made before the Trial Court had been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that rejection of the applications in RFA No.2130/2006 is due to certain misconception. According to the learned counsel the amendment of the schedule had already been carried out in the plaint but was not reflected in the decree and therefore applications had been made. Such submission in my opinion cannot be accepted in the present proceedings for the reason that this Court in these Writ petitions in any event cannot be taken note of the correctness or otherwise of the order passed in RFA No.2130/06. In such circumstances, when similar applications had been disposed of in RFA No.2130/2006 and subsequently when applications to the same effect was made before the trial court, certainly no fault can be found with the trial court in dismissing such 7 applications. Further, the trial court has taken note of the order passed by the High Court and observed that the High Court had not granted leave to file application before the trial court. If at all, it is a fact that the plaint had been amended and it was only that the said amendment had not been carried out in the decree, it would open for the petitioner to avail appropriate course to bring this aspect to the notice in an appropriate proceedings and thereafter the correction be sought. In any event, the order impugned cannot be faulted in this proceeding.
These petitions are disposed of with such liberty to the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/