SYED ANWAR AND ORS. Vs. SHUSHEELAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant - petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 9097/2004 dated 30.1.2015 and has sought for setting aside the same.

(2.) IT is submitted that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction without seeking possession on 19.12.2004. The LRs of the defendant filed written statement and issued were framed thereafter. The plaintiffs and the defendant's evidence was closed and the matter was to be posted for arguments on the main suit. At this juncture, the plaintiff filed an application to re -open the case and post the matter for further evidence and also filed an application seeking an amendment of the prayer without any valid reason. The application was objected by the defendant on the ground that the application is filed after three years which is beyond the limitation period. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction. Whereas the I.A. is filed for amendment for amending the prayer seeking possession also. The Court committed an error in allowing the application without giving any reasons for rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to allow this writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge.

(3.) TO substantiate his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred number of judgments. By referring the judgment in the case of MASHYAK GRIHNIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT v. USMAN HABIB DHUKA AND OTHERS, : AIR 2013 SC 3188 wherein the Supreme Court has held that amendment sought for by the plaintiff to incorporate the relief of declaration of conveyance deed is illegal and not only belated one but was clearly an after thought for obvious purpose to avert inevitable consequence. The order of the trial court in allowing the amendment application is erroneous and unsustainable. He has also relied upon the judgment in the cases of S. MALLA REDDY v. M/S FUTURE BUILDERS CO -OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND OTHERS with JAI LAKSHMI v. M/S FUTURE BUILDERS CO -OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND OTHRS, : AIR 2013 SC 3693 wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that the amendment application filed belatedly cannot be entertained.