RAJENDRA KUMAR PATIL Vs. BHARATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 made in I.A.No.VIII passed in O.S.No.44/2010 by the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Raichur rejecting the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of Civil Producer Code.

(2.) The petitioner - plaintiff filed O.S.No.44/2010 for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property against the respondents/defendants contending that, the petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed and he has been continued in possession of the same. Defendants without having any manner of title and interest in respect of the suit property started illegal construction of building in the suit schedule property belonging to the petitioner. Hence, he filed a suit. The defendant No.1 has filed written statement denied the entire plaint averments and contended that the defendants are not interfering with the suit property of the plaintiff and constructed the compound wall around their property and sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) When the matter was posted for plaintiff evidence, at that stage the plaintiff filed IA-VIII under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of Civil Producer Code to amend plaint to delete para No.3 of the plaint and its place substitute amended para No.3 narrated the same in the amendment with regard to the facts of the case and details how the plaintiff acquired the property contending that the suit property was acquired from its previous owner Chandrakanth S/o Late Mahadev Rao Hanchacte and the same was purchased by the petitioner. Some of the documents were produced for proposed para No.3 for amendment, only to clarify and explain about the flow of the title in favour of the plaintiff and said amendment will not change the nature of the suit and no prejudice will be caused to the defendants. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition.