SMT. PAPATHIYAMMA v. THE COMMISSIONER

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TOWN HALL CIRCLE, TUMAKURU - 572 102. (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON I.A NO.2 DATED 17/12/2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUMAKURU, IN O.S. NO.274/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND FURTHER ALLOW I.A. NO.2 FILED BY THE - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:297 WP No. 2096 of 2023 PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT VIDE ANNEXURES-C AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This writ petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.274/2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.II filed by the petitioner-plaintiff whereby the said application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating paragraphs-14A to 14D was dismissed by the trial Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record.

The material on record discloses that the petitioner- plaintiff instituted aforesaid against respondent/defendant/Corporation for declaration, mandatory injunction and other relief in relation to the suit schedule immoveable property. The said suit is being contested by the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:297 WP No. 2096 of 2023 respondent-defendant, who its written statement, pursuant to which, the trial Court framed the issues and posted the matter for evidence. Prior to commencement of trial, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint by incorporating the additional facts and grounds in support of her claim. The said application having been opposed by the respondent-defendant, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application-I.A.II, aggrieved by which, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court by way of present petition.

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate that the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for adjudication of controversy between the parties, particularly when the petitioner-plaintiff merely sought to amplify the facts already pleaded by him in the original plaint and the proposed amendment would not in any way change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action. Further the respondent-defendant would be entitled to file its additional written statement to the amended - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:297 WP No. 2096 of 2023 plaint. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the well settled principles of law governing the amendment of pleadings as enunciated in various judgments including the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India -vs- Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition which deserves to be allowed.