INDIRA AND ORS. Vs. B.C. MUNIRAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, as the plaintiff, has instituted OS No. 1919/2008, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, to pass a decree, that he has perfected his right over the schedule 'B' property by adverse possession and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioners, as the defendants, have filed written statement on 29.06.2009. Issues having been raised, the plaintiff has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief on 17.10.2011. Prior to the commencement of the cross examination of P.W. 1, I.A. No. 4 was filed by the plaintiff, under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, to permit the amendment of the plaint, in the manner proposed. Despite statement of objections filed on 21.02.2013, said application having been allowed by an order dated 30.05.2015, this writ petition was field to set -aside the said order and to dismiss the said application.

(2.) SRI . A. Madhusudhan Rao, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that amendment having been sought after commencement of the trial, the plaintiff/applicant having not shown any diligence, the proviso under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC being attracted, the Trial Judge has committed illegality in passing the impugned order, permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint, that too, by way of substitution of schedule 'B' property, in respect of which the main relief has been sought. Learned counsel submitted that the statement of objections filed on 21.02.2013 to the I.A. has not been considered and hence, the impugned order being perverse and illegal, interference is called for.

(3.) CONSIDERED the rival contentions and perused the record.