Sultan Mohiyuddin vs Smt Habeebunissa on 9 November, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sultan Mohiyuddin vs Smt Habeebunissa on 9 November, 2010

Bench: B.S.Patil

1.
 Aged .50 years.
  V "'.?V/Lo Rafeeq Ahmed.
= _ R/at~¢N0.20, E.No.5ih Street,
A . 'A016 Madras Road,

WP 24815/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY or NOVEMBER. .;di'Q  2 V

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE »B4S.PAT;f{"3v   

W.P.No.24815/20091fG1\}f;(§I5C]AA»"  -, 1  

BETWEEN:

1.

Suitan Mohiyuddin,

Aged 52 years, __  E   ~

S/0 iate Shri T.A.Abdu1Fasheedi;» 'L
Ahamed Pasha,"  H

Aged 50 years,'   2:  = A  
S / 0 late Shﬁ '1',Ai'A1;;duEE?_.asheed,  V .

Ajaz Pash.a,"VV"~V,_V"' I'
Aged 48 yearsA,e'v_, ' _  _ --
S / 0 late Shri  ui "Rash eed,
Ali residiﬁgat  1_  A
10"' V'A_V' Main' R0ad,.'--First Biock,

Jayai_r1ag'a r, Bangaiorej 1 1.  PETITIONERS

" r_(B'y  AN-,,Chandrashekar, Adv.)



Srrit-,HaT_:$eebfL1nissa,

Uisoor, Bar1gaiore--560 008.

. 'Sznt.Bhadrunnissa,

Aged 45 years,
W/0 Khalad Shariff,
R/ at No.29, Old Police Lane.



W"? 24815/2009

Mackam Road, V.  
Bangalore--42.  REsPoNDVIsNfrs._V

{Sri S.A.Mujeeb. Adv.)

This Writ Petition is filed unde_r..Artic1es"226:'.and"  'ofuu ' _ 

the Constitution of India, praying to quash'tth'e -order__ dated
25.5.2009 made by the learned 28$" A'ddl.fCity Civ_ill'J_udge..£'May.o

Hall Unit, Bangalore, allowing the application for samendmentﬁ

filed by the plaintiffs and etc.

This petition coming on for _li:'relirriinaIy'i*i«earing?--iE3 Group
this day, the Court madevthe foll.otWing:;  " "

1. Challenge  gpetitionidvis'to...the order passed by

the court  made by plaintiffs»

respondents herein iarnendment of the plaint.

2. Plaintiffs;reSpondentsshad filed an application for .incorpo.ijating additi-o.nal__paragraphs 7(a) to 7[e] in the plaint 'regard 'to*ti5i'e. mental condition of deceased T.A.Abdul while executing VVthe"_'~gift;.dVeed in question regarding plaint schedule A & B properties'. dd request for amendment was resisted contending that the suit having been ﬁled in the year 1996, the _4_4'4proposed amendment sought to be incorporated by filing an application in the year 2007 could not be entertained. W'? 24815/2009

4. The court below has in exercise of it discretipon and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the allowed the amendment sought for.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitionersfjv order passed by the court below' is illegal and ; the plaintiffs are permitted to such a belated stage. He passeddprejudicially affects the interests of He has placed reliance on Court in the case of RAJKUMAR ﬁgs?' Vs M/S. S.K.SARWAGI & co. 'If. L1'D..&"V:am§; "2003 so 2303.

6. Counsel4l""appearing. ffosr the respondents supports the ll f'o:_der-fpassied. A _ the learned Counsel for the parties, I find V by that thefruling relied upon by the petitioner, the Apex Court if held that pre--trial amendments are to be allowed liberally, whereas: those sought to be effected after commencement of the 'tr-iallhave to be strictly dealt with. WP 24815/2009

8. In the instant case, as can be seen from the proc_eedings sheet produced, the evidence of the parties wasj"y_et commenced when the application was filed. in discretion, the Trial Court has a1lov_ved.._the it amendment, in the instant case is a trial. Hence, the judgment reliedv"'r.ipon"bj,* for the petitioner has no app1icap1;_i__(d,:f'1:p.,,t_§-glfie present case. The court below the amendment sought for does notxalter or the cause of action. I~1ence,'.,13\-: tolllinterfere in exercise of the writjurisdiction, it

9. HoV\teVeI'«, as'1figli,ti3rcon'ter*ided by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, éltheivdefendantsv shall have an opportunity to meet it the corj1teI1?t1,or1t. by raising additional defence and also by leading ev_id'ence,.in». thisregard.

"Hence, Stibject to the above observation, the writ petition H N " i~sydisposed'*'of declining to interfere with the order passed. Sd/~ 3"t?§GE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court