Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 489 (KAR)

H. K. Manjunath v. Ramesh Kumar

2022-04-06

E.S.INDIRESH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This Writ Petition is filed by defendant No.1(c) in Original Suit No. 27 of 2009 of on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan, challenging the order 10/11/2021 dismissing IA.19. 2. Brief facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that the plaintiff has filed suit against the defendant seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and contested the matter. However, during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and his legal representatives were brought on record and thereafter the defendant No.1(a) has filed written statement as per Annexure-E. In the meanwhile, the defendant No.1(c) has filed IA.19 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the written statement filed by defendant 1(a). The said application is resisted by the plaintiff. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by order dtd. 10/11/2021, dismissed the application and being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1(c) has preferred this Writ Petition. 3. I have heard Sri Raghuveer R Settigeri on behalf of Sri Vigneshwar S. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Priya Kale for Sri George Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 4. Sri Raghuveer R. Settigeri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiff is only for insertion of Survey number and therefore the same would not cause any hardship to the other wise or it may alter the nature of the suit and accordingly he submitted for interference of this court in this Writ Petition. 5. Per contra, Smt. Priya Kale, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the during the crossexamination of PW1, certain question has been put to PW1 with regard to the suggestion on the correction as to whether the survey number is 78 of 2010 or it is survey No.78/10. She further contended that the application IA.19 is to overcome the said suggestion admitted by PW1 and therefore, she contended that, the Writ Petition requires to be dismissed. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded the trial Court. 7. She further contended that the application IA.19 is to overcome the said suggestion admitted by PW1 and therefore, she contended that, the Writ Petition requires to be dismissed. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded the trial Court. 7. Undisputably, suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendant and the finding recorded by the trial Court at paragraph 7 would indicate that applicant/defendant No.1(c) intends to change the survey number which is reflected in the written statement filed by defendant 1(a). Perusal of the finding record by the trial Court would indicate that the defendant No.1(a), while crossexamination by PW1 elicited that the subject matter of the survey number is 78/2010 and not 78/10. However, in the present application is filed by defendant 1(c), who has not filed written statement before the trial Court and in order to circumvent the said evidence adduced by PW1 in the cross examination, and therefore, I am of the view that the trial Court is justified in rejecting the IA.19. This court, in the case of R VIJAYA KUMAR v. MRS MUNIYAMMANNI reported in (2012)3 KLJ 1993, held that the parties cannot be allowed to amend the pleadings which may go against the admission made by the parties in the evidence and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Writ Petition deserves to be rejected, accordingly rejected.