Smt Nagarathnamma vs Sri Marichannappa and Others

Hon''ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.10.11, passed on LA. No. 16 which is an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.409/07 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Ramanagar.

The relevant facts of the case are that the first respondent herein has filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction. After recording of evidence and at the stage of final arguments, an application under Order VI Pule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed seeking amendment of the plaint by inclusion of an additional prayer. The said application has been allowed. It is against the said order, this wilt petition has been fifed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application filed by the first respondent herein was at a belated stage. The trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the additional relief sought by way of amendment is also hit by the Limitation Act. Therefore, the trial court ought to have dismissed the application and the order impugned calls for interference in this writ petition.

Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the first respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit has sought the following reliefs:

a) declare that the registered partition deed registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Vide Document No.942 in C.D.No.RMND9 dated 7.7.2004 between defendants 1 and 2 or any other deeds in respect of the suit schedule property is inoperative, ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff.

b) consequently declare that the Sale Deeds executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of defendant 4 and 4th defendant in favour of 5th defendant which were registered in the office of the. Sub-Registrar Ramanagaram Regd. Vide sale deed document Nos.3184 dated 2.12.2004 and 8527 dated 9.2.2007 are inoperative, ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff.

c) for consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or any other person/s claiming under them restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and from dispossessing him from suit properly.

d) direct the Sub-Registrar to cancel the same in the office of the Sub-Registrar Ramanagaram.

e) for payment of costs and such other reliefs or orders as this Hon''ble court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.

The proposed amendment is only with regard to seeking an additional relief. The additional relief is sought as a consequential declaration to be considered by the trial court in the event of the first respondent is successful in the suit. The trial court has also noted that the question as to whether the additional prayer sought by the first respondent could be granted of not in view of limitation is a matter which would be considered at an appropriate time since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Therefore, keeping open the question of limitation, the trial court has allowed the amendment. The contention of the petitioner that the additional prayer sought by the first respondent is belated and is hit by the Limitation Act cannot be answered at this stage. The relevant article of the said Act to be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be considered by the trial court. Therefore, the order allowing the amendment does not call for any interference in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.