B KRISHNAPPA DEAD BY LRS Vs. SMT RATHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed O.S.No.8254 of 2012 before the XXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bengaluru City, seeking a decree of declaration of their title and for consequential reliefs. After issues were framed, the matter was adjourned for filing the list of witnesses and documents by the plaintiffs. At that stage, I.A.No.III was filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to incorporate an additional prayer for the relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants No.1 to 7 to demolish the existing structure and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. I.A.No.IV was also filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking for a direction against defendant Nos.1 to 7 to deposit the rents collecting by them in respect of the suit schedule premises. By the impugned order, both the applications were rejected. Hence, these petitions.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. That the applications filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners ought to have been allowed. If the said applications are not allowed, miscarriage of justice would ensue.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents is absent.