B MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND : VENKATARAYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS Smt. DYAVAMMA & Ors. v. NATIONAL BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLY

( By Sri. G B MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND : VENKATARAYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1 Smt. DYAVAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O INAMINACHANAHALLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 2 3 2 Smt. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O MANIMAKALAPALLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. Sri KESHAVAPPA S/O MUNIHYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A RENUMAKALAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2010 PASSED ON AN APPLICATION FILED U/O 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.172/95 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR AS PER ANNEXURE-H, BY ALLOWING THIS WP & ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 3 ORDER The plaintiff filed a suit to direct the defendant to execute the necessary registered sale deed with reference to the suit schedule properties and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was filed by the second defendant to amend the written statement. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the same. Hence, the present Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendment is necessary for the just disposal of the suit. Hence, interference is called for. The trial Court considering the application held that in case defendant No.1 had really entered into an agreement with him for selling the suit property on 19-8-1993, then the second defendant ought to have pleaded the said facts earlier. But now, when 4 the case is already disposed off on merits and again when it is remanded back to this Court for a limited purpose, at such a belated stage the second defendant has filed this application. That the second defendant has not assigned any reasons as to why he kept mum for such a long time and why this application was not filed at the earliest point of time. That even though there is power to allow any such of the pleadings the trial Court was of the view that the application deserves to be dismissed.

On hearing the counsels and examining the records I’am of the considered view that there is no error committed by the trial Court that calls for any interference. Firstly, the suit was decreed. On challenge the same was remanded by the Appellate Court for limited purpose. It is at that stage that the said application has been filed. In respect of the application nothing has been pleaded as to 5 why such application could not have been filed earlier. Except narrating the facts there is no reason for the delay in filing the application. Hence, I do not find any error that calls for any interference. Every application requires to be filed with proper reasons. On consideration of the said application, it is clear that nothing has not been pleaded, atleast the reasons for non-filing could have been narrated. The callous manner in which the application is filed with the affidavit cannot persuade the Court to allow the same.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of JAI JAIN RAM MANOHAR LAL v. NATIONAL BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLY, GURGAON reported in AIR 1969 SC 1267, in particular with reference to paragraph-7 of the Judgment. It was held therein that there is no Rule that unless in an application for amendment, it is expressly averred that the 6 error, omissions or misdescription is due to a bonafide mistake, the Court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitation.” As narrated by the Supreme Court that has to be questioned herein. There is an absence of each one of those descriptions herein. The affidavit does not even contain any reference whatsoever as to why it should be allowed. Under these circumstances if the amendment is allowed the entire rules of procedure would have to be given a go-bye. The power to grant an amendment is intended to sub-serve the cause of justice. Sub-serving the cause of justice is not only the case of the defendant but the the case of the plaintiff also. Even otherwise there is no reason as to why the application is to be allowed. I do not find any error that calls for interference. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, the Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-