K. DURGA PRASAD SHETTY Vs. SHASHIKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the sole defendant feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of CPC, wherein the learned Judge has allowed the amendment application and has permitted the respondent-plaintiff to incorporate additional properties and pleadings in that regard.

(2.) The respondents-plaintiffs have instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.57/2020. The plaintiffs have specifically alleged against the present petitioner-defendant that he is guilty of not furnishing the accounts of income and expenditure and has not distributed 3/4th of the profits i.e. legally due to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have further specifically pleaded at Para (4) of the plaint that the present petitioner having failed to provide accounts has dishonestly utilized the income derived from the properties for himself.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would straightaway place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers .vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others, ;2009 10 SCC 84. Referring to para 64 of the said judgment, he would contend that the trial Court while dealing with amendment application is under bounden duty to find out whether the amendment application is tainted with malafides and therefore, if at this juncture, the respondentplaintiff is permitted to bring in the self acquired properties of the petitioner, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. He would conclude his arguments by contending that the order under challenge is not at all sustainable in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra.