Tirakappa S/O. Sannappa Oragondar vs Hanumantappa S/O. Laxmappa Sunkapur on 17 July, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Tirakappa S/O. Sannappa Oragondar vs Hanumantappa S/O. Laxmappa Sunkapur on 17 July, 2012

Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

              CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2012

                           BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAL

        WRIT PETITION Nos.62978/2012 &
      WRIT PETITION NO.65293/2012 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

TIRAKAPPA S/O SANNAPPA ORAGONDAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O BASAVANAGUDI ROAD,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.                 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M.H.PATIL, ADV.)

AND

HANUMANTAPPA S/O LAXMAPPA SUNKAPUR,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SIDDESHWAR NAGAR,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.       ... RESPONDENT

      THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 AND 4 U/ORDER 8 RULE 6(A) OF
C.P.C. AND U/ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.348/2009
DATED 19.03.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.ND.) AND I ADDITIONAL JMFC, COURT, RANEBENNUR, VIDE
ANNEXURE-F.

     THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                            :2:




                         ORDER

In a suit for bare injunction, on appearance the respondent filed written statement. After the issues were framed, an application in IA-III is moved under Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure so also IA-IV under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the pleading. Both the applications are granted as against which the petitioner is before this Court.

2. I have perused the impugned order. I am of the view that the said orders cannot be faulted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it changes the basic structure of the written statement. I am of the view that a perusal of the applications as well as the impugned order does not give rise to such an impression that the basic structure of the written :3: statement is sought to be changed. Having said so, I am of the view that the question of interference does not arise. Petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE Jm/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court