SHIVAPPA Vs. HIRIYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner being the decree holder in O.S.No.26/2007 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the rejection of his amendment application in I.A.No.1 in the said suit for the amendment of suit schedule property by describing it properly. After service of notice, the respondents have entered their appearance through their counsel and opposed the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order submits that, the suit in O.S.No.26/2007 for ejectment having been decreed, the decree has been put in Ex.No.179/2013; although there was some defect with description of the property in the plaint itself, all the parties went to trial fully knowing the identity of the property; the judgment debtors in their written statement have specifically admitted the description of the property; the judgment and decree are affirmed in contesting respondents R.A.No.41/2012, wherein also there was no dispute as to the identity of the property; that being so the Court below ought to have favoured petitioner's application -4- for proper description of the said property especially when the delivery warrant was returned unexecuted for improper description of the same.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors per contra makes the submission in justification of the impugned order stating that they had filed the objections to the application for amendment specifically disputing the identity of the property; at this length of time the application having been filed, has been rightly rejected by the Court below. So contending he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.