SUMITHRA Vs. RANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Plaintiff has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.62/2010 invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 01.07.2014, a copy whereof is at Annexure-G made by the trial Court, whereby her application in I.A.VII filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of CPC, 1908 for amendment of plaint, has been dismissed. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their learned counsel who resists the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff Smt. Manjula Kamadolli, contends that the said application has been rejected with an erroneous assumption of law that the trial of the suit begins once the issues therein are framed and thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of this Court for setting the injustice occasioned thereby at naught. She further submits that even otherwise also the amendment ought to have been permitted, since petitioner in her affidavit supporting the application has narrated the circumstances as to impleadment of other defendants at a later stage and that she came to know of the properties that stand in their name only thereafter. Thus, she prays for allowing of the writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting respondentdefendant contends that the petitioner has filed this application after lapse of nearly five years after filing of the suit; her assertion that she was not in the know of these properties, which are now sought to be added to the prayer column, is not true; the fact that the owners of these properties are subsequently allowed to be impleaded as defendants does not come to the aid of the petitioner-plaintiff. So arguing, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.