Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 344 (KAR)

SANGAVVA v. SHANTAWWA SAJJAN

2020-02-05

S.G.PANDIT

body2020
ORDER : The petitioners, the defendants in O.S. NO.17 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Gadag, are before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2019 passed on I.A. No.12 by which the amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. 2. The suit is one for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. When the suit was at the stage of defendants’ evidence, the plaintiffs filed I.A No.12 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to include certain items of properties to the schedule for partition. The said application was opposed by the defendants stating the same is opposed to Order II Rule 2 of CPC and the plaintiff has filed the said amendment application belatedly. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint to add certain items of the properties to the suit schedule. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 17 of CPC. It is his submission that the application was filed belatedly at the stage of defendants’ evidence. Further, he submits that the application is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC. At the time of filing of the suit itself, the plaintiff ought to have included all the properties in the suit schedule and not at the stage of fag end of the suit. Thus, he prayed for dismissing the application by allowing the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the suit is one for partition and separate possession. It is settled law that a suit for partition shall include all the properties which are available for partition. In the instant case, even though the application is filed at the stage of defendants’ evidence, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to minimize the litigation the Trial Court has rightly allowed the amendment application. It is settled law that a suit for partition shall include all the properties which are available for partition. In the instant case, even though the application is filed at the stage of defendants’ evidence, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to minimize the litigation the Trial Court has rightly allowed the amendment application. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court. Moreover, Order II Rule 2 of CPC would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. Since in a suit for partition, at any point of time, the properties could be included. Even at the stage of final decree proceedings also, the properties could be included for the purpose of partition. Further, the impugned order in no way prejudice the case of the defendants. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition stands rejected.