LAKSHMAMMA Vs. THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER being the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No. 1992/2010 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and demolishing the existing house in the suit schedule property on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City dated 5 -9 -2012 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 R.17 of CPC, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that she is the absolute owner of the property bearing Site No. 1 in Sy. No. 39 situated at Agrahara Dasarahalli, in all measuring 36 x 80 sq.feet which was purchased from Kamalamma as per the registered sale deed dated 26 -11 -1980. In the said suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Order VI R.17 of CPC to amend the plaint to correct the western and northern boundaries. The said application was opposed by the defendant. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail rejected the application on the ground that after commencement of the trial, the plaint cannot be amended and it will change the cause of action and nature of the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri. A.M. Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the Trial Court and contended that the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed of the year 1980 claimed ownership over the property. In the said sale deed, the boundary has been mentioned. In the suit, the petitioner wanted to challenge the boundary towards northern and western side and also house property number which will change the entire frame of the suit and introduce new cause of action and new property. It is not permissible after the commencement of the trial. Further the suit was filed in the year 2010, pleadings has been completed and P.W.1 has been examined and cross -examined. In the cross -examination, P.W.1 has made certain admissions and to overcome the said admissions, the present application has been filed. The said application has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.