Karnataka High Court
Sri.K. Suresh vs Sri. Chandrashekar on 4 April, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14237
WP No. 7942 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7942 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.K. SURESH
S/O T SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A KODIHALLI VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 114
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.G.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2. SRI VIJAY KUMAR
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
VANDANA S
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 3. SMT RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
4. SRI RAMANJINAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT: SOLUR VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14237
WP No. 7942 of 2024
5. THIMMARAYAPPA (POOJARI)
S/O THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/A JADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI
HOSAKTOE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.
6. SRI SRINIVASA
S/O SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
7. SRI CHINNAIAH
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 7 ARE
RESIDING AT: JADIGENAHALLI
VILLAGE AND HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDERS DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF THE
PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE ON I.A. FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.134/2021
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.134/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, is directed against the impugned order dated 08.01.2024, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order VI Rule -3- NC: 2024:KHC:14237 WP No. 7942 of 2024 17 of CPC seeking amendment of plaint by adding proper names and addresses of defendants 2 and 4 was allowed by the trial court.
2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant No.3 and other defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule properties. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner/defendant No.3 and other defendants. During the pendency of the suit, respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of plaint by showing proper names and addresses of defendants 2 and 4 by way of substitution. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner/defendant No.3, the trial court proceeded to pass the following order by holding as under:
"Case called out.
Heard both side.
ORDER ON APPLICATION This is the application filed by the plaintiffs u/o 6 R 17 r.w sec 151 of CPC with prayer to permit the plaintiffs to carry out the amendment in cause title of the plaint by adding proper name and address of the defendant no.2 and 4. In the accompanying affidavit it is contended that the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:14237 WP No. 7942 of 2024 amendment sought for is not going to introduce new cause of action, even it does not change the nature of suit. Further contended that due to typographical error name and address of defendant no.2 and 4 have wrongly been mentioned, hence summons to defendant no.2 and 4 are not being served. Therefore the amendment is necessary for the plaintiffs to serve the summons to defendant no.2 and 4. Therefore prayed to allow the application.
On the contrary advocate for defendant no.3 has filed objection and contended that the application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Further contended that this being the suit for bare injunction filed by the plaintiff some other defendants cannot be included unless there is specific allegation against them. Further contended that there is no cause of action against the said defendants mentioned in the application. Therefore prayed to dismiss the application.
After having heard both side and considering the facts and circumstances of this case it is apparent that the amendment sought for is not going to change the nature of the suit, even it doesn't introduce the new cause of action , further it appears to be typographical error . Though defendant no.3 has contended there is no specific allegation against the said person mentioned in the application, it is the contention of the plaintiff that due to typographical error name of the defendant no.2 and 4 have wrongly been mentioned. Therefore it is apparent that plaintiff has already mentioned and made necessary party as defendant no.2 and 4,but their names have wrongly been mentioned and the amendment sought is only in cause title of the plaint. Hence I feel it would be proper to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to have their pleading amended, which would in fact assist the court to decide, determine the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:14237 WP No. 7942 of 2024 rights of the parties thoroughly. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Application filed by the plaintiffs u/o 6 R 17 r.w sec 151 of CPC is hereby allowed.
Plaintiffs are permitted to carry out the amendment in plaint cause title as sought for. Further plaintiffs are permitted to furnish the amended plaint within stipulated time.
Call on for furnishing amended plaint by 19.02.2024."
3. In my considered opinion, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant No.3 by the impugned order by permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by adding proper names and addresses of defendants 2 and 4 since petitioner/defendant No.3 would be entitled to oppose the claim of the plaintiffs on all grounds. As such, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice nor the same can be said to have suffered from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed off without interfering with the impugned order. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:14237 WP No. 7942 of 2024 Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.3 to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and to take up all contentions before the trial court, in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58