M/S. Krithi Constructions vs Mr. K. Thippa Reddy on 23 November, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M/S. Krithi Constructions vs Mr. K. Thippa Reddy on 23 November, 2012

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

                      -: 1 :-


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

    DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

        WRIT PETITION NO.40830/2010 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

M/S. KRITHI CONSTRUCTIONS,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.211,
5TH MAIN, HAL 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-75, REP. BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR.P.K.SOMASHEKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KRISHNA REDDY.
                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: M.SIDDARAJU & SRI.K.R.PRADEEP, ADVS. FOR
M/S RAJAGOPALA NAIDU & K.R.PRADEEP ASSTS.)

AND:

1.MR. K.THIPPA REDDY,
S/O LATE KONDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.22, CHALLAGHATTA YAMLUR
POST, BENGALURU-37.

2.MR. T.VENKATESH MURTHY,
S/O. K.THIPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.790, 2ND CROSS,
'C' BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT,
KUNDLAHALLI, BENGALURU-37.

3.MR. P.SATISH PAI,
S/O. LATE P.NARASIMHA PAI,
MAJOR BY AGE, R/AT NO.85/1,
K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-27,
                           -: 2 :-


NOW AT SHANKARANARAYANA
BUILDINGS, OPP: MOUNT CARMEL
COLLEGE GATE, VASANTHANAGAR, B'LORE-52

                                           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: H.S.DWARAKANATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2,
SRI.N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADV. FOR
M/S SHEVGOOR KAMATH LAW ASSTS. FOR R3)

                           *****

     THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2010, PASSED ON AMENDMENT
APPLICATION WHICH WAS FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE
17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING
AMENDMENT TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY ALLOWED BY
THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE CITY IN O.S.
15959/2005 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
                         ORDER

The second defendant in O.S.No.15995/2005, which is pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 03/11/2010 passed on Order IV Rule 17 of C.P.C. The said application was filed by the first defendant in the suit, seeking amendment of the written statement. By the impugned order, the application has been allowed. Being aggrieved -: 3 :- by the said order, the second defendant has preferred this writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the suit is filed by the first and second respondents herein, against the third respondent as well as the petitioner herein. After the receipt of the suit summons and notice, the petitioner and third respondent herein filed a joint written statement. Subsequently, the third respondent herein, who is the first defendant in the suit, filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement. The said application was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein, who is the second defendant in the suit has filed this writ petition. Since it appears that the petitioner and the third respondent herein, who had jointly filed the written statement, are not in agreement with the amendment sought by the third respondent herein and are therefore, not acting in tandem and since the petitioner herein was in any case entitled to file an independent -: 4 :- written statement in the suit, while affirming the order passed by the trial Court permitting the amendment of the written statement filed by the third respondent herein, liberty is reserved to the petitioner herein to file an independent written statement. It is also made clear that any averments or admission made in the written statement, jointly filed by the petitioner along with the third respondent herein, would not come in the way of the petitioner herein filing an independent statement. He is at liberty to make averments and take all contentions available to him to contest the suit filed by respondents No.1 and 2 before the trial Court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of reserving the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. The trial Court is directed to grant reasonable time to the petitioner to file the written statement.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

*mvs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court