Writ Petition No. 48615 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21879 WP No. 48615 of 2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 48615 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIPAPANNA AGED 61 YEARS R/AT CHANNA HALLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
Legal Reasoning
SMT. N.ROOPA W/O N.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.3526, 1ST CROSS 13TH 'H' MAIN, HAL II STAGE INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 038. (BY SRI. HARINATH M S., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DEVANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.611/2012, PASSED ON INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21879 WP No. 48615 of 2019 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following relief: "i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated: 26/08/2019, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devanahalli, in O.S.No.611/2012, passed on Interim Application No.7 produced at ANNEXURE-A, ii) Issue such other writ or writs or pass any such order or orders as this Honourable court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri. Chandrashekar L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent. He filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement. However, the trial Court rejected the same on the ground that the amendment now sought is not necessary to decide the case on hand. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is nothing but clarification as to how Sy.No.64 has been bifurcated and out of the said extension, 13 guntas have been acquired by National - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21879 WP No. 48615 of 2019 HC-KAR Highway Authority and he has received the compensation. It is submitted that the identification of the property and the boundaries furnished to the suit schedule property is not correct and the said factual aspects intended to be brought by way of the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the dispute between the parties. Hence, he seeks to allow the application by setting aside the impugned order. 3. Per contra, Sri. Harinath M.S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court though may not have assigned detailed reasons, however, it has rightly come to conclusion that the amendment sought has no bearing on the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of contract. The acquisition of the property as stated in paragraph 18(a) of the application has taken place much prior to the filing of the written statement, and it is not known why the said aspect was not brought in the written statement. Hence, he seeks to sustain the impugned order of the trial Court. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21879 WP No. 48615 of 2019 HC-KAR respondent. Perused the materials available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on each side. 5. The respondent filed suit in O.S.No.611/2012 for relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 09.08.2011. In the said suit, petitioner filed detailed written statement and thereafter, the trial Court framed the issues and the respondent adduced evidence as PW.1. The petitioner examined himself as DW.1 and when the matter was posted for cross-examination, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC came to be filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the written statement. The averments made in the application indicate that the petitioner/defendant intends to clarify that Sy.No.64 consists of 100 acres of land and out of the said extent, 1 acre was granted to the petitioner and out of the said 1 acre, 13 guntas have been acquired by National Highway Authority for widening of National Highway on the north-eastern side of the suit schedule property and he has received compensation from the said authority. Further, the petitioner, in the written statement intends to indicate that the boundaries of the suit - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21879 WP No. 48615 of 2019 HC-KAR schedule property are incorrectly shown in the suit and he intends to dispute the same. The trial Court considering the same rejected the application on the ground that this is unnecessary to decide the case. 6. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. The petitioner by way of proposed amendment to the written statement intends to elaborate the stand taken by him and also intends to dispute the boundary of suit schedule property shown in the plaint as incorrect. Ultimately, allowing the said application would not amount to accepting the plea of the petitioner/defendant in the suit. Allowing such an application would not cause any prejudice or injustice to either side and it would not deny the stand taken by the plaintiff/respondent in the suit. It cannot be ignored that the application is filed belatedly, hence, required to be allowed on terms. Hence, in my considered view, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed. 7. Hence, I pass the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21879 WP No. 48615 of 2019 HC-KAR
Decision
ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 26.08.2019 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.611/2012 on the filed Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli is hereby set aside; (iii) I.A.No.7 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by the petitioner/defendant on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli is hereby allowed, subject to condition that the petitioner/defendant shall pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff. SD/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26