AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6. In this writ petition the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 1.6.2012, passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 2621/1999 on I.A. No. 13.
By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected I.A. No. 13 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
The petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 2621/1999 for partition and separate possession. The parties have led evidence. At that stage, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 13 to amend the plaint by deleting para 6. The Trial Court, by its order dated 1.6.2012, has rejected the application. Therefore, this writ petition.
The respondents 2 to 6 have filed objections resisting the writ petition. It is contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and it does not call for interference.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also-submitted that the petitioner has pleaded in para 6 of the plaint that Smt. Nagamma was the second wife of Gowdara Venkatappa and she had no issues. The respondents have denied that Gowdara Venkatappa had two wives by name Seekuramma and Nagamma. Therefore, the respondents will not be prejudiced in any way if the proposed amendment is allowed. Further he submitted that the merits of the amendment cannot be gone into while considering the application for amendment. He also submitted that the admission, if any, can be explained and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others Vs. K.K. Modi and Others, to contend that the Court shall allow amendments which are necessary for determining the real question.
As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the amendment has the effect of taking away the admissions in the pleadings and evidence and therefore, the proposed amendment cannot be allowed. Further he submitted that the application has been filed after the lapse of nearly 13 years and the proposed amendment affects the rights of the respondents and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SCW page 6644 and AIR 1998 Raj page 227.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
It is relevant to note, the suit is for partition and separate possession. The petitioner has pleaded in para 6 of the plaint that Gowdara Venkatappa''s second wife Smt. Nagamma had no issues. The parties have led evidence. The petitioner has deposed that she is the granddaughter of Gowdara Venkatappa and her mother Hanumakka is the daughter of Smt. Nagamma, the second wife of Gowdara Venkatappa. In the plaint, it is pleaded that Smt. Nagamma had no issues. After the lapse of several years, that too, after the completion of evidence, the petitioner has filed application for amendment of the plaint. While it is true, amendments are liberally allowed, but in the present case the amendment is sought for after the lapse of several years. The plea and the evidence are not consistent. Based on the pleadings, issue is also raised. If the petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint, it will seriously prejudice the rights of the respondents. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The observations made in the impugned order shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the matter on merits.