S.M. KRISHNA Vs. S. RATHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the defendants in O.S. No. 812/2007 on the file of VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. They being aggrieved by the order dated 7th September, 2007 made on I.A. No. 16 dismissing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, have filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against defendants seeking for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the suit, it was contended that plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 21.3.2003 from the 2nd defendant as power of attorney holder of Sri Ramachandra Reddy. After the purchase, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, the defendants interfered with the possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. In view of that, she filed the suit seeking for permanent injunction.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. The plaintiff was examined herself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P23. She was cross -examined by the defendants. When the case was posted for defendants' evidence, the defendants filed I.A. No. 16 to amend the written statement by incorporating paras -9 to 12. In paras -9 to 12, the defendants wanted to plead new grounds contending that the husband of the plaintiff is a money lender and the defendants had taken loan from the husband of plaintiff. While taking the loan, the husband of the plaintiff had taken signatures on the blank demand promissory note and also stamp papers. The said blank papers were made use of by the plaintiff. The said contention was not taken while filing the written statement. The amendment was sought after five years of filing the suit that too when the case was posted for evidence of the defendants. The Trial Court taking into consideration of these facts all these aspects of the matter rejected I.A. No. 16 by its order impugned and the same is challenged in this writ petition.