T.S. MANJUNATH, S/O. C.G. SHIVANNA REP. BY G.P.A. HOLDER SRI LOKESHAPPA S. Vs. N. MANJUNATH SHETTY, S/O. SRI NARASIMHA SHETTY AND SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI, D/O. CHIKKACHANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 3879/2003 pending on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore. The Respondents are the Defendants in the suit.W.P. No. 31566/2010 has been filed to quash the order dated 12.08.2010 passed on I.A. No. 5 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure by the Plaintiff to amend the plaint.W.P. No. 35162/2010 has been filed questioning the order dated 10.11.2009 passed on I.A No. 13 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint. Both the said applications having been dismissed, the Plaintiff has filed these writ petitions.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) THE Petitioner filed the suit on 05.06.2003 against the 1st Respondent for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions in respect of the property shown in the schedule of the plaint. The suit and the applications were contested by filing the written statement and statement of objections by the Defendant. Trial court having declined to grant an order of temporary injunction, the Plaintiff filed MFA 6994/2004. Upon disposal of the said appeal, the Plaintiff filed I.A No. 5 on 14.12.2004 seeking permission of the court to amend the plaint by incorporating the proposed pleading i.e., para 11(b) and the additional prayer (a). Plaintiff filed I.A No. 6 under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure on 1.9.09.2005 to implead the 2nd Defendant. The said application was allowed on 20.10.2005. The Plaintiff filed I.A No. 7 under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint and the same was allowed on 27.10.2006. The 2nd Defendant has filed written statement on 17.03.2007. Issues having been framed, the trial has commenced on 29.08.2007. The Plaintiff filed I.A No. 13 under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure on 05.06.2009 seeking amendment of the plaint i.e., the very amendment, which he had proposed in I.A. No. 5. The said application was dismissed on 10.11.2009. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has filed memo dated 30.11.2009 to consider I.A No. 5. The trial court has passed the order dated 12.08.2010 in I.A. No. 5.