Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 39 (KAR)

Urvashi Theatre v. Basetty Trust

2016-01-11

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2016
ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners-defendants challenging the order dated 5-12-2015 passed in O.S. No. 4012 of 2015 by the Trial Court on the amendment application filed by the defendants, which was rejected by the Trial Court. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiff. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has submitted that the amendment application was filed to clarify the pleadings that were already taken in the written statement. He has also further submitted that during the year 2014, the petitioner while searching, found the Trust deed. Therefore, the averments were not taken in detail in the written statement, so far as the said document-Trust deed is concerned. Hence, to clarify the written statement, the amendment application was filed. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the said application was filed when P.W. 1 was being examined in-chief and immediately the said application was filed and absolutely there is no delay in filing such application. He has also submitted that it is not going to change the defence, which is already taken in the original written statement. Hence, he submitted that the Trial Court has not rightly appreciated the said application and wrongly rejected the same. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and Another, AIR 2009 SC 2544 : (2009) 14 SCC 38 : 2009 AIR SCW 4441. Learned Counsel draw the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Hence, submitted to allow the petition and to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court by allowing the application filed seeking amendment. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiff has submitted that as per the written statement filed by the defendants, it is admitted that the plaintiff was the landlord and owner of the said property and the defendants are the tenants in the said property. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiff has submitted that as per the written statement filed by the defendants, it is admitted that the plaintiff was the landlord and owner of the said property and the defendants are the tenants in the said property. He has further submitted that whatever the averments made in the proposed amendment, which is now wanted to brought on record with regard to the Trust deed is concerned, those contentions were already taken in the original written statement and in this connection, learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraph i.e., paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the original written statement, which was filed. Learned Counsel has also submitted that when the defendants admitted that they are the tenants, they cannot deny the title of the landlord. Hence, he has submitted that the main intention of filing such application is to drag on the proceedings, because petitioners are getting good income and are continuing though the period of tenancy has expired. Hence, he has submitted that these aspects were properly appreciated by the Trial Court and rightly rejected the said application and no illegality has been committed. Hence, submitted to dismiss the petition. 4. I have perused the averments made in the petition, the application I.A. No. 4 filed before the Trial Court under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and also the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the amendment application and also proposed amendment by adding paragraph 23(a) in the written statement. Perusing the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is stated by the applicants-defendants in the written statement that while searching in the cupboard, found the documents to show that the said property is a Public Trust Property. Hence, the main contention in the said application that defendants wanted to clarify such contentions, which were found later. 5. I have perused the pleadings of the petitioners herein, even according to them new things were found in the year 2014, but the suit was filed in the year 2015, if it is the true fact, they could have averred the said facts in the written statement itself. Therefore, the plea and the reasons mentioned are not consistent. 5. I have perused the pleadings of the petitioners herein, even according to them new things were found in the year 2014, but the suit was filed in the year 2015, if it is the true fact, they could have averred the said facts in the written statement itself. Therefore, the plea and the reasons mentioned are not consistent. Apart from that, looking to the written statement filed by the petitioners/defendants before the Trial Court originally, there are such contentions, which are already taken about the nature of the property stating that it is the Trust property. Hence, these aspects were rightly appreciated by the Trial Court while considering the application seeking the proposed amendment and rightly rejected the said application. I have perused the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which is referred above, and the principles enunciated in the said decision at the relevant paragraphs. But looking to the facts and circumstances involved in the said decision and the facts and circumstances in the case on hand, so also the reasons made out in the pleadings seeking the proposed amendment are not one and the same and as I have already observed above the reasons mentioned as the document is noticed later while searching the cupboard. Hence, I do not find any merit in the proposed amendment. There is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is hereby rejected.