MEENAKSHI Vs. H. NAGARATHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging order dtd. 17/10/2016 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mandya, on I.A.no.XX filed under Order VI rule 17 of CPC, in O.S.no.199/2007 as per Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Sri V.S. Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.no.199/2007 filed for partition and separate possession of their share in suit properties. It was submitted that after entering appearance, respondents/defendants filed written statement opposing suit. Thereafter trial Court framed issues and parties went into trial. At that stage, plaintiff herein filed I.A.no.XX under Order VI rule 17 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC for amendment of plaint by way of addition of pleadings. Though, in affidavit filed in support of application, it was stated that when matter was posted for cross-examination of defendants' witnesses, while searching for documents, plaintiffs traced certain documents executed by defendants in favour of plaintiffs' father. Contents of said documents revealed that there were no sale transaction between plaintiffs and defendants. It was in fact only a loan transaction, therefore, contention of defendants that they were bona fide purchasers would be incorrect. It was further stated that plaintiffs were not aware of contents of documents until tracing of same. As they revealed nature of transaction between defendants and plaintiffs' father as loan transaction, and said factor would be material for proper determination of dispute between them, allowing of application for amendment was necessary.

(3.) It was further submitted that contention of defendants in their objections filed to application, it was stated that application was filed after nine years of filing of suit, was intended to overcome admission about nature of transaction until then contended to be sale transaction. But now sought to be contended as loan transaction would amount to introducing new cause of action and also that application for amendment of pleadings was filed without challenging order rejecting application for production of document namely, alleged 'oppige patra', and therefore, not maintainable.