PAPANNA Vs. VENKATASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 11/7/2008 passed on I. A. No. VII in O. S. No. 695/1999 on the file of the learned XXIV additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, bangalore rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of C. P. C. , has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed an application- I. A. No. VII under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C. P. C. praying to amend the prayer column of the plaint by adding additional prayer for the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property, produced at Annexure-C. The said application filed by the petitioner had come up for consideration before the trial Court. The trial Court, after hearing both the sides and after considering the statement made in the accompanying affidavit along with the application and the objection filed by the respondents and after framing necessary points for consideration with reference to the material available on record and also with reference to the judgments of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, has rejected the application holding that it is very clear that amendment cannot be allowed when the relief is barred by limitation. Questioning the correctness of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner has presented the instant writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.