S.M. MUNIYAPPA Vs. PAPAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashwathanarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P N Rajeshwara, appearing for respondents 1(A) and 2. The question of issuing notice to other respondents does not arise inasmuch as, writ petitioner who is the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 4193/94 has questioned the order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the trial Court dismissing applications filed by him which was for recasting of the issues and as such, any order that would be passed in these writ petitions, it is the plaintiffs alone who would be aggrieved and none other.

(2.) It is the contention of Mr. Ashwathanarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st defendant that trial Court committed a serious error in rejecting the application for recasting of the issues and it ought to have allowed the same and recasted the issues as sought for by casting the burden on the plaintiff as well as 2nd defendant and non -consideration of the application in proper perspective has resulted in an erroneous order being passed.

(3.) Per contra, Sri P N Rajeshwara supports the impugned order and contends that on the sole ground of delay, the application was liable to be dismissed since the issues were casted on 25.01.2011 and the application in question for recasting of the issues came to be filed on 25.11.2015 after a period of four years. Even otherwise, he would submit that the issues already framed would encompass the proposed issues also.