VIRUPAKSHA AND ORS. Vs. SHANKARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the defendants in O.S. No. 414/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Chikmagalur. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.1.2014 rejecting I.A. No. 8 seeking for amendment of the written statement, they have filed this writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT herein filed the suit seeking for declaration declaring that he is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property and mandatory injunction for removal of barbed wire fence and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendant No. 4 filed written statement. The other defendants adopted the written statement filed by defendant No. 4. After framing of issues, defendants filed I.A. No. 8 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking for amendment of written statement contending that they could not aver in the written statement regarding the agreement dated 8.8.1981 executed by the plaintiff and his wife, Smt. Gangamma and receipt of the amount on 25.4.2001. The said defence is very much necessary. Plaintiff objected for the said amendment of written statement contending that the written statement was filed in the year 2011. After lapse of two years, I.A. No. 8 filed seeking for amendment of written statement is not permissible. The Trial court after considering the matter in detail by its order impugned rejected the said application seeking for amendment of written statement. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THOUGH the contesting respondent was served with notice, he remained unrepresented.