M. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. DHANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by; the petitioner -defendant requesting the Court to set aside the order dated 17.08.2015 passed on an application I.A.7 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. pending on the file of XLIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH -44).

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments made the submission that plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs ' legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 after appearance filed his written statement. It is also the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the written statement some contentions were taken with regard to the schedule property. He submitted that through mistake such contention was raised in the written statement and subsequently, after getting the documents the petitioner wanted to amend his written statement. The learned counsel submitted that trial Court rejected the said application holding that if the amendment application is allowed it will change the nature of the suit. The learned counsel submitted that it is not the amendment of the plaint, it is in respect of amending the written statement. Therefore, it will not change the nature of the cause of action of the suit.

(3.) THE Learned counsel further made the submission with regard to the averments made in the written statement and the contentions taken in the amendment application though it is the view of the trial Court that the amendment is contrary to the original written statement, even then the trial Court should not have rejected the amendment application, because the defendant is permitted to such contrary defences in his written statement. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that rejection of his application by the trial Court is patently illegal and the said order is to be set aside by allowing the writ petition.