DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SELF EMPLOYMENT TRAINING INSTITUTE Vs. SHRI. BASAVENAPPA, THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE DIRECTOR AND THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SELF EMPLOYMENT TRAINING INSTITUTE@RESPONDEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the suit by the 1st respondent seeking for a declaration that the Government is the owner of the suit schedule property and consequential reliefs, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by the plaintiff, 10 years thereafter, seeking to delete the 1st prayer and substitute the same by the amendment sought for. The Trial Court by the impugned order allowed the application. Hence, the present petition by the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, very fairly submits that the reasons assigned in the application and the affidavit do not constitute sufficient reasons to allow the application.

(2.) IN terms of the application what is sought for is that the declaration that the Government is the owner of the suit property be deleted and to be substituted by the prayer that the grant made by the Deputy Commissioner to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 is bad. On considering the affidavit, I do not find any due diligence that has been shown by the plaintiff. Merely stating that if the amendment sought for is allowed, no loss or injustice would be caused to the defendants cannot constitute due diligence, especially when the trial has commenced. Even otherwise, the suit was filed in the year 2000 and the application has filed in the year 2010, at the stage arguments. Hence, on this ground also, the application has to fail. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 16.08.2010 passed in O.S. No. 50/2000 by the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Dharwad is set aside. The I.A. for amendment is dismissed.