HUCHEGOWDA HEGGADE Vs. BOJEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking following relief:

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint in Regular Appeal filed by him, intending to incorporate certain facts which came to his knowledge after dismissal of the suit. It is submitted that respondents claim that there is a partition on 5/9/2003 and based on such partition revenue records have been affected. However, in the said partition, the petitioner was neither a party nor a signatory and this aspect was not within the knowledge of the petitioner when the original suit was filed. Hence, they later discovered that fact is required to be brought on record by way of amendment in the pending appeal.

(3.) It is submitted that the respondents have not disclosed this fact in the written statement in the pending suit. If they had disclosed, he would have filed an application for amendment in the suit. Hence, the petitioner was compelled to file an application in the appeal. It is submitted that, if the amendment is necessary to decide the controversy involved between the parties, it can be amended during the appellate stage. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DINESH GOYAL ALIAS PAPPU V/s. SUMAN AGARWAL reported in AIR 2024 SUPREME COURT 4779 and the decision of this Court in the case of SMT. PUTTAMARAMMA V/S. GIRIYAPPA AND OTHERS reported in 2016 (1) KCCR 73 and submits that the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the controversy involved between the parties. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition.