Karnataka High Court
Smt Boramma vs Sri Mahadevaiah on 1 March, 2017
-1-
WP No.12460/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO.12460/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. BORAMMA
NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O CHALUVANARASAIAH
R/O HOSADODDI VILLAGE
HAMLET OF AJJANAHALLI
VILLAGE & POST, MADABAL HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK 562 120
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI J.S.PRADEEP FOR
SRI N. SUBBA SHASTRY, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI MAHADEVAIAH
SON OF LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/A HOSADODDI VILLAGE
HAMLET OF AJJANAHALLI
VILLAGE & POST, MADABAL HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK-562 120
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
2. SMT. ERAMMA, D/O LATE DODDAIAH
W/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A BALALINGEGOWDANADODDI
VILLAGE, DODDAGANGAWADI
POST, KOOTAGALLU HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-562 159
-2-
WP No.12460/2013
3. SMT. KARIYAMMA
D/O LATE DODDAIAH
W/O SRI. JOGI BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A YEREHALLI VILLAGE & POST
KOOTAGALLU HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT 562 159 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.K.CHANDRASHEKAR,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-F TO THIS WRIT
PETITION DATED 11.09.2012 IN O.S.NO.80/2001 PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION AND JMFC
MAGADI BY SETTING ASIDE THE SAME AND PRAYS TO ALLOW
THE UNNUMBERED IA ANNEUXRE-D WHICH ONE FILED UNDER
VI RULE 17 OF THE CPC TO THIS WP IN O.S.NO.80/2001 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION AND
JMFC, MAGADI.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. Heard. This writ petition by the plaintiff is directed against an interlocutory order dated 11.09.2012, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the petitioner's application filed for amendment of the plaint.
2. Admittedly, the application for amendment of the plaint was filed after commencement of the trial. Nowhere it -3- WP No.12460/2013 is stated in the application as to why the petitioner could not apply for amendment before commencement of the trial. Hence, dismissal of the application is in accordance with the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LB