BORAPPA Vs. S.M. MAHESHWARAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Mr. Borappa, is aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2015, passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi, whereby the learned Civil Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 R/w. Section 151 CPC, for amending the written statement filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Mr. S.M. Maheshwaraiah, the respondent herein, had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of a land bearing Survey No. 97 -C, 97 -D and, 97 -E situated in Kudligi village, Koppal Taluk, Bellary Dist. But according to the respondent, these land holdings were part of his family property. The petitioner did not have any right over the said land. But nonetheless, petitioner began interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent herein. Thus, the suit for declaration and injunction.

(3.) SMT . Rekha Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that since a typographical mistake has occurred with regard to the name of the testator, who had written the Will dated 10.02.1996, the typographical error was sought to be corrected by filing the application for amendment. According to her, the alleged Will was not written by Smt. Chanabasawwa, W/o. Muppinappa, but was, in fact, written by Smt. Kotramma, W/o. Kotraiah. Therefore, merely the names had to be changed. Thus, the correction would not have changed the nature of the case, and would not have led to any delay in the conclusion of the trial. Moreover, she has relied upon the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi and Others v. Nandram (D) Thr. Lrs and Others ( : 2015 SCCR 568) and pleaded that the amendment should be permitted in the interest of justice. A technical view should not be taken by the Court for denying the amendment. According to her, the learned Civil Judge has taken a technical view while rejecting the application for amendment. Hence the impugned order deserves to be set side by this Court.