M.S. ANANDA KUMAR Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

(2.) Petitioner is the lone defendant in the original suit bearing O.S.No.263/2006, pending on the file of the court of Principal Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Mandya. Respondent has filed a suit for declaration of title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of two items of immovable properties as described in the schedule appended to O.S.No.263/2006. The petitioner who is the lone defendant in the said suit has specifically averred in the statement that the suit itself is not maintainable since the sale deed dated 12.7.2006 is not challenged by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, an application came to be filed by the plaintiff requesting the Court to permit her to add additional prayer regarding cancellation of the alleged sale deed. The said application came to be allowed after contest by the order dated 7.2.2015 on I.A.No.9. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial Court could not have allowed I.A. filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, more particularly, when the evidence of the plaintiff was already over. He has relied upon the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC which has come into effect from 1.7.2012. He has argued that when the very amendment is being allowed by the court, right accrued to the defendant is virtually taken.