C.R. CHANNABASAPPA Vs. R. RAJKUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. S.H. Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. R. Narayan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3(A). Respondent No. 4 is served and unrepresented.

(2.) PETITIONER , who is defendant No. 3 in O.S. No. 3094/2008 is seeking for quashing of order dated 01.06.2012, Annexure -J, whereunder application - I.A.VI filed for amendment of written statement has been dismissed on the ground that no satisfactory reason has been assigned by defendant No. 3 to permit him to amend the written statement and also on the ground that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC places an embargo on the Court to allow such amendment unless the jurisdictional fact as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, such amendment should not be allowed.

(3.) PER contra, Sri. Narayan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3(A) would support the impugned order and rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VIDYABAI AND OTHERS v. PADMALATHA AND ANOTHER reported in : AIR 2009 (3) KLJ 604 (SC) to contend that without proper explanation for delay in raising such plea not being offered. Trial Court had rightly rejected the application and as such he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.