VENKATAMMA Vs. THANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are plaintiffs in OS No. 2849/2009 on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore (CCH - 12). They being aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.2012 rejecting the application filed under Order 6 R.17 read with Section 151 of CPC have filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant in alienating the suit schedule properties and also other reliefs. The contesting respondents/defendants have filed written statement to the said suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues have been framed on 26.7.2003. The matter has been posted for evidence. After commencement of evidence, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 R.17 of CPC seeking for amendment of plaint, which reads as under:

(3.) SRI H.C. Satish, learned Advocate for petitioners contended that the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application seeking for amendment of plaint is contrary to law. Learned Advocate submits that the property number has been wrongly mentioned as the property bearing Sy. No. 99/1 instead of mentioning as Sy. No. 99/2. Further the extent of land is also wrongly described as 80' x 60'. In the prayer column, the petitioners sought for deletion of prayer No. (a). Learned Advocate submits that the amendment sought for will not change the nature or cause of action of the suit and sought for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.