SUSHEELAMMA Vs. B. UMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents are the plaintiffs and the petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No. 12/2003 filed on 09.01.2003 in the Court or" Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Madhugiri, to pass a judgment and decree of partition and separate possession and for grant of consequential reliefs in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Written statement was filed on 19.06.2004, disputing the claim of the plaintiffs to the suit properties. Based on the pleadings, issues were raised on 16.09.2006. Plaintiffs' evidence commenced on 24.02.2007. During the course of trial, additional issues were raised on 19.06.2008. Plaintiffs' closed their case on 26.02.2009. Defendants' evidence commenced on 29.05.2012 and DW. 1 was partly cross-examined on 18.06.2012. At that stage, on 22.11.2012, I.A.15 was filed by the plaintiffs, under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC to grant permission to amend the plaint, in the manner proposed. Despite the statement of objections filed to I.A.15 on 21.08.2012 and the written arguments submitted, the learned Trial Judge allowed I.A.15 and permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint, in the manner proposed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- Assailing the said order, the defendants have filed this writ petition. Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order suffers from procedural impropriety and the same is irrational. He submitted that I.A.15 having been filed after commencement of the trial and there being no due diligence shown and the affidavit in support of I.A.15 having not made out any case for grant of permission to amend the plaint in the manner proposed, on account of a misdirection adopted, the impugned order has been passed, which if allowed would result in substantial failure of justice and the defendants would be severely prejudiced. He submitted that on account of allowing of I.A.15 there is a miscarriage of justice and the impugned order being vitiated may be quashed.

(2.) Sri Chandrashekar, learned advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and there being no new case sought to be introduced with a new cause of action or there being no change in the nature of the suit, the view taken by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.No. 15 being justified, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the view taken by the Trial Court on I.A.15 and sought dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Perused the writ record.