VIMALA PUTTASWAMY Vs. ACHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S.No.1474/2007 for a decree of declaration and injunction in respect of subject property is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 11.10.2017 whereby his application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC 1908, has been dismissed by the Court below. The contesting respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, after service of notice, oppose the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has an error apparent on its face inasmuch as once the buyer of the subject property preceeding the institution of the suit having been permitted to be impleaded as a defendant, the application for amendment of the plaint in view of this new development could not have been rejected by the trial court at all; he points out that the plaintiff-petitioner is the buyer of the property anterior to the sale deed of the impleaded defendant and the very impleadment was for the purpose of a final and effective adjudication of the lis which as it's corollary, needs the amendment of plaint. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents makes submission in justification of the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. I have perused the petition papers.