SURESH Vs. VEENA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Yallapur, whereby the learned Senior Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for seeking an amendment in the written statement filed by him.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, Smt. Veena, filed a civil suit for specific performance and declaration against the petitioner -defendant No. 1 and against Balakrishna -respondent No. 1 (before this Court). In the plaint, she claimed that the petitioner -defendant No. 1, is the owner of 'A' schedule property. On 22.12.2005, the petitioner -defendant No. 1 and Smt. Veena, entered into an agreement of sale in 'A' schedule property. The said property was to be sold to Smt. Veena for a consideration of Rs. 1,90,000/ -. Out of the said consideration amount, the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,00,000/ - to the petitioner. Subsequently, on 02.02.2006, she paid the balance amount of Rs. 90,000/ - to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner -defendant No. 1 has received the full consideration amount. But due to the fact that there were some encumbrances on the said suit property of Ankola Urban Bank and Angod Co -operative Society, the sale deed could not be registered. The petitioner assured the plaintiff, that as soon as the loans are cleared, he would secure the permission of the Deputy Commissioner. Despite repeated request of the plaintiff, to have the sale deed registered, the petitioner refused to do so. Consequently, the civil suit was filed. Along with the civil suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

(3.) The petitioner not only filed his objection to the interim application for temporary injunction, but also requested the Court to treat the said objection as his written statement. During the course of the trial, after the examination -in -chief of PW1 was over and after seeking three adjournments for cross -examining PW1, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and sought to amend the written statement. The petitioner claimed that, although the agreement to sale in favour of the defendant No. 2 was entered into much prior to the filing of the suit, the sale deed was registered with the defendant No. 2, only thereafter, i.e., on 13.11.2009. He further raised certain contentions that the plaintiffs husband is a Government employee, who is receiving a salary of more than Rs. 2,00,000/ -. Therefore, the plaintiff could not purchase any agricultural land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Moreover, the plaintiffs husband had to seek prior permission of the Government before the plaintiff, the wife, could purchase any land in her name. Lastly, the defendant No. 2 had improved the condition of the land after investing a large amount. However, by the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence this petition before this Court.