Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1366 (KAR)

Jayamma v. P Srirammayya

2023-12-06

S.G.PANDIT

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.198/2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Chikkaballapura are before this Court, questioning the order dtd. 4/7/2022 by which, I.A.No.11 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC as well as I.A.No.12 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC are rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Sowmya for petitioners and Sri.K.N.Nitish, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 3, 4, 10 and 11; Sri.K.N.Praveen Kumar and Sri.K.Ajaykumar, learned counsels for respondent No.9; Sri.A.Lourdu Mariyappa, learned counsel for respondents No.2. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs is one for partition and declaration that plaintiffs are entitled for 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties and alleged sale deeds and Gift Deeds executed by defendants are not binding on the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that I.A.No.11 is filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the proposed defendant No.12 who is the daughter of first defendant. It is submitted that the first defendant executed Gift Deed dtd. 14/8/2018 in favour of defendant No.12. Therefore, it is submitted that proposed defendant would be necessary and proper party to suit. Learned counsel would further submit that when the first defendant has created interest in the proposed defendant in respect of one of the items of suit schedule properties, it would be appropriate for the petitioners/ plaintiffs to bring the beneficiary under the Gift Deed as party to the suit. Thus, she prays for allowing I.A.No.11 to implead the proposed defendant No.12. 4. Insofar as I.A.No.12 for amendment is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the amendment application is filed to amend the plaint to correct typographical mistakes and if the amendment application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants. Further, it is submitted that allowing of amendment application would not change the nature or complexion of the suit. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the amendment application, 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants would support the order passed by the trial Court. Further, learned counsel would submit that the proposed defendant No.12 would not be necessary for proper adjudication of the suit, when her father is protecting her interest in the suit. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the amendment application, 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants would support the order passed by the trial Court. Further, learned counsel would submit that the proposed defendant No.12 would not be necessary for proper adjudication of the suit, when her father is protecting her interest in the suit. Further, it is submitted that the Gift Deed said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of defendant No.12 is not under challenge in the present suit. Therefore, it is submitted that she is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Further, with regard to amendment he would submit that the trial Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the trial Court is justified in rejecting I.A.No.11 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC but the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint to correct typographical errors. 7. I.A.No.11 is filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the daughter of first defendant as defendant No.12. The reason assigned in the application is that defendant No.1 has executed Gift Deed in favour of her on 14/8/2018, but the said Gift Deed is not under challenge in the suit. Any transfer during pendency of suit would attract lis pendency. Moreover, father of defendant No.12 is already on record in the partition suit. Hence, the proposed defendant No.12, daughter of defendant No.1 is neither necessary nor proper party. Hence, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the said application. 8. I.A.No.12 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint to correct typographical errors i.e., to describe the properties, measurement and boundaries properly. Allowing amendment application to correct the typographical mistakes would in no way change the nature or complexion of the suit. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the amendment application is allowed to effect typographical corrections. 9. Normally, the amendment application is allowed to minimize the litigations and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Allowing amendment application to correct the typographical mistakes would in no way change the nature or complexion of the suit. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the amendment application is allowed to effect typographical corrections. 9. Normally, the amendment application is allowed to minimize the litigations and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Without correcting or properly describing the schedule property, if the decree is obtained, it would be of no use to the petitioners/plaintiffs. 10. In the light of the above, the impugned order insofar as I.A.No.11 is affirmed and the impugned order passed on I.A.No.12 is set aside and I.A.No.12 is allowed, permitting the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint to correct typographical errors. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.