NATARAJA AND ORS. Vs. PADMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are defendants No.4, 8(a) and 8(b) in O.S.No.33/1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Hiriyur. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16-10-2014 rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC have filed these writ petitions.

(2.) The predecessors of respondents 1 to 5 Nagappa and Nagendrappa had filed the suit seeking for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share in respect of 'A' schedule property and also declaration, declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of 'B' schedule property and restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession in respect of 'B' schedule property and for other reliefs. The contesting defendants in the suit filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. The parties went for trial.

(3.) After remand, the 8th defendant died and his legal representatives have come on record as defendants 8(a) and 8(b). Defendant No.4 and defendant No.8(a) and (b) filed two separate applications under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the written statements incorporating the counter claim as provided under Order VIII Rule 6(A) of CPC. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs contending that after lapse of 17 years, that too after remanding the matter, the defendants cannot maintain the counter claim under the guise of amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail, relying upon the judgment in the case of BOLLEPANDA P. POONACHA AND ANOTHER V/S K.M.MADAPPA, 2008 2 KCCR 1009 rejected both the applications filed by defendant No.4 as well as defendants No.8(a) and 8(b). Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petitions have been filed.