SHAKUNTALA AND ORS. Vs. SHIVANAGOUDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/defendant No.1 and 2 in OS No.245/2006 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2016 on interlocutory application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which is allowed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit was initially filed for declaration of the sale deed as null and void and for permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 has taken the possession of the suit schedule properties on 10.08.2009 pursuant to the order passed in EP No.55/2005. The plaintiffs/respondents slept over the matter and only on 16.02.2016 filed an application for amendment seeking prayer of possession, which is allowed by the trial Court. It is his contention that the trial Court did not take into consideration the question of limitation and further submits that the order of the trial Court allowing the amendment application is wholly erroneous which requires to be set-aside.