OBAMMA Vs. KRISHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging order dtd. 22/9/2017 (Annexure-A) passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, while holding concurrent charge of Senior Civil Judge, Malur, on I.A. filed by plaintiff under Order VI rule 17 of CPC, in O.S.no.6/2013, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Smt. Shwetha Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that this writ petition was filed by defendants in O.S.no.6/2013. Said suit was filed seeking for declaration of plaintiffs as absolute owners of schedule 'A to D' properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment. It was submitted that defendants filed their written statement on 20/7/2013. After framing of issues on 13/1/2014, trial was commenced with plaintiff no.2 being examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.92. Further, evidence on defendants' side was also recorded with marking of Exs.D1 to D.139. At that stage, i.e. on 2/7/2015 defendants filed application for amendment of written statement. Despite opposition, it was allowed. Thereafter defendants filed amended written statement. Subsequently, plaintiff filed rejoinder to amended written statement, which was opposed by defendants. On 26/11/2015, trial Court framed additional issues. On 3/12/2015, plaintiffs filed I.A. for amendment of plaint, which was allowed as being unopposed. After filing of amended plaint, defendants filed additional written statement. Thereafter plaintiffs filed second rejoinder to their written statement. Even same was objected. Thereafter on 18/7/2017, trial Court passed order rejecting both rejoinders filed by plaintiffs on 20/8/2015 and 20/4/2017. Such being case, urging very same facts and contention, plaintiffs filed application under Order VI rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint on 3/8/2017. Defendants filed objection on 5/9/2017.

(3.) It was submitted that under impugned order passed on 22/9/2017, trial Court allowed plaintiffs' application for amendment. It was submitted that said order was clearly illegal and passed without considering fact that very same pleading which was sought to be added in plaint under rejoinder statements were now permitted to be added by way of amendment. It was submitted that assertion with regard to Doddapillareddy acquiring properties from income derived after he began living separately and creating false partition deed on 9/2/1995 and an alleged WILL dtd. 3/8/1984 etc., would change nature of suit altogether. Therefore impugned order passed by trial Court allowing application for amendment would be unsustainable.