Sri. Ningaiah vs Sri.M.Hanumanthraju on 30 November, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ningaiah vs Sri.M.Hanumanthraju on 30 November, 2017

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

                        1

                                   WP NO.16348/2017


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

                      BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

      WRIT PETITION No.16348/2017(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI NINGAIAH
S/O LATE GAVISIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.

2. SMT SIDDAGANGAMMA
D/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUR 43 YEARS.

3. SMT GOWRAMMA
D/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

4. SMT KAMALAMMA
D/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

5. SRI ANDANAIAH
D/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS


ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING
AT SHANTHAPURA VILLAGE
                            2

                                          WP NO.16348/2017


HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572120.            .. PETITIONERS

(BY SRI H R SANJEEVE GOWDA, ADV.)

AND

SRI M HANUMANTHRAJU
S/O LATE HUCHARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT;
BANNIKUPPE MAJRE
SHANTHAPURA VILLAGE
HEBBUR HOBLI
TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572120.            ..RESPONDENT

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.713/2013 ON THE
FILE OF THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR
DIVISION) AND JMFC AT TUMKUR AND PERUSE THE
RECORDS.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                       ORDER

This petition is directed against the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumkur in O.S.No.713/2013 dismissing petitioners' application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 3 WP NO.16348/2017

2. Sri H.R.Sanjeeve Gowda, learned counsel arguing in support of this writ petition contended that, whilst the instant suit O.S.No.713/2013 was in progress, one of the family members filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.207/2016 arraying the first petitioner herein, Ningaiah as defendant no.6. Therefore, petitioners sought to bring subsequent events on record by filing the instant I.A. By way of amendment, petitioners have sought to bring certain additional facts on record and the same would not adversely affect the plaintiff in any manner. The trial Court without properly appreciating the material on record has dismissed the said application. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.

3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records.

4. The 1st petitioner herein is defendant no.1 in the Court below. The suit is one for specific performance of an 4 WP NO.16348/2017 agreement dated 23.11.2011. The suit for partition in O.S.No.207/2016 is stated to have been filed by the nephew of defendant no.1. To a query by this Court, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as on the date of filing of the application, plaintiff's evidence was complete.

5. The learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that no reasons are assigned for the proposed amendment of pleading and the delay in presentation of the application is not properly explained. Post amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, an application of this nature could not have been entertained and in my view, the same was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court.

6. Resultantly, this Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE brn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court