Karnataka High Court
C N Venkatesh vs Smt Venkatalakshmamma on 30 November, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.3995 OF 2020(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
C. N. VENKATESH,
S/O DODDANALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT BALAKUNTAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK -562 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. N. ASWATHANARAYAN., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT BALAKUNTAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562101.
2 . MAREGOWDA,
S/O LATE ERAMARALPPA
MAJOR
R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK - 562101.
3 . NAGARAJA,
S/O LATE DODDAMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
VALASE VILLAGE
THONDEBHAVAI HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TLAUK,
CHICKBALLAPLUR DISTRICT
2
4 . GANGAMMA
W/O LATE MUTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK
562101
5 . MUNILAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LAKSHMINARASAPPA
D/O LATE MUTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT DEVARAKONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
6 . LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
W/O CHANNAPPA,
D/O LATE MUTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT GULDANARASIMHANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK.
7 . SRINIVASA
S/O LATE MUTHRAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
8 . NALLEGOWDA
S/O LATE MUTHRAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
REPONDENTS NO.7 & 8 ARE
R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK -562101
9 . RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
S/O DODDANALLAPPA,
MAJOR
10 . NARAYANAPPA,
S/O DODDANALLAPPA,
MAJOR
3
11 . HANUMAIAH
S/O DODDANALLAPPA
MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 11 ARE
R/AT BALAKUNTAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2-R11 ARE D/WITH V/O DATED 02.03.2020)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2019 PASSED
ON I.A. FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.8 I.E., PETITIONER
UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 IN O.S.NO.393/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHICKABALLAPUR
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner being the eighth defendant in a suit for declaration in O.S.No.393/2012 is at the door steps of this Court fro assailing the order dated 18.12.2019 a copy whereof is at Annexure-G whereby the learned Civil Judge, Chickiballapura, having rejected his application filed under order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, has denied leave to amend the Written Statement. 4
2. Notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 11 having been dispensed with, the respondent No.1 has entered appearance through his counsel, who vehemently opposes the writ petition contending that already the contentions which the petitioner seeks to file by way of amendment to his Written Statement are on record and that it is open to him to file his Additional Written Statement, if at all he so desires.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) Ordinarily, in matters involving a claim for declaration of title, the Courts need to be a bit lenient in treating the request for leave to amend the pleadings of the parties subject to all just exceptions into which the argued case of the petitioner does not fit; such a leniency is shown to the respondent - plaintiff by granting leave to amend the plaint whereas the same is unjustifiably denied to the petitioner herein; this is not a happy thing to happen, since it generates a heart burn of discrimination & unfairness.5
b) When leniency is shown to the plaintiffs side, ordinarily, the same cannot be denied to the other side unless the case stands on different footing and in this case such differentiating features are militantly absent; no heavens would have fallen down had the same leniency been shown to the petitioner on par with the plaintiff; this having not been done, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of the Writ Court.
(c) It is true that the petitioner could have filed his Additional Written statement to meet the contention which by way of amendment the respondent-plaintiff has taken up; but there is a certain difference between a plea being taken by way of amendment to the pleadings and a plea being taken by way of additional pleadings, the suttle difference being a matter of deep consideration at the hands of this Court.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is invalidated; petitioner's subject application having been favoured, leave is accorded for amending the Written Statement as sought for; learned trial judge shall take the further steps accordingly. 6
It is clarified that the order set aside is confined to denial of leave to the petitioner to amend his Written Statement and that to the extent it grants leave to the plaintiff to amend the plaint is retained intact. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Learned judge of the Court below is requested to try & dispose off the suit as expeditiously possible keeping in mind other pressing works as well.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv