AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 17.6.2013, passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 1003/2006 on I.A. No. 13 vide Annexure-''A''. By the impugned order at Annexure-''A'', the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
Briefly stated the facts are:
The first respondent has filed suit in O.S. No. 1003/2006 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendants have filed their written statement. Thereafter, on 5.11.2012, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 13 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC praying to amend the written statement by adding the proposed amendment. The Trial Court has rejected the application. Therefore, this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the proposed amendment is in the nature of correcting a mistake and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioners wanted to amend the written statement by adding Deepavali 1972 in place of Uagdi 1962 and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the proposed amendment takes away the effect of admission and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2009 Karnataka page 746.
As against this, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the proposed amendment takes away the effect of admission and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the proposed amendment is not a typographical error. It is to overcome the admission made the application has been filed. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have pleaded that the partition has taken place in the year 1962 on Ugadi day. Thereafter, the petitioners have realized that it is a mistake. They want to correct the mistake stating that the partition took place in the year 1972 on Deepavali day and not in 1962 on Ugadi day. The fact that the partition has taken place is already pleaded. The petitioners want to correct the mistake. Instead of Ugadi 1962 they want to correct it as Deepavali 1972. The petitioners have to prove their case. The proposed amendment does not prejudice the first respondent in any way. It can be allowed. However, the delay needs to be compensated.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.6.2013 vide Annexure-''A'' passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 1003/2006 on I.A. No. 13 is hereby set-aside and the petitioners are permitted to amend the written statement by adding the proposed amendment. The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the first respondent. The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter as early as possible within the outer limit of June 2014.