Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12814 (KAR)

SRI. PARAMASHIVAIAH v. SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA

WP/600/2025 · 2025-02-18

H T Narendra Prasad

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7280 WP No. 600 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PARAMASHIVAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. BHADRAMMA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS W/O LATE PARAMASHIVAIAH 2. SRI NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE PARAMASHIVAIAH BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.50 HASURAVALLI JAKANNAHALLI THYAMAGUNDALU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. 3. SMT. PUSHPAVATHI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O JAGADEESH KUMAR D/O. LATE PARAMASHIVAIAH RESIDING AT SHAKALA DEVARAPURA MADURI HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561204. 4. SMT. NALINAKASHI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7280 WP No. 600 of 2025 W/O BASAVARAJU .H D/O LATE PARAMASHIVAIAH RESIDING AT SHIVAJYOTHINAGARA HAROKATHYANAHALLI MAIN ROAD MAKKALI, BENGALURU-562123. 5. SMT. MANJULA H.V. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O GOWRISHANKAR D/O LATE PARAMASHIVAIAH RESIDING AT NO.50 HASURAVALLI JAKANNAHALLI THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O LATE SHIVAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 2. SMT.SUMATHI D/O LATE SHIVAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 3. SMT.SUNITHA D/O LATE SHIVAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.43 5TH CROSS,WILLSON GARDEN HOMBEGOWDANAGARA WARD, BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYASHANKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7280 WP No. 600 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO. 9784/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-63 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 25.10.2024 IN DISMISSING APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING CORRECTION OF THE PARTIES NAMES IN THE PLAINT CAUSE TITLE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, in O.S.No.9784/2015, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the said application. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the parties have settled the dispute among themselves and filed compromise - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7280 WP No. 600 of 2025 petition. The Trial Court, vide order dated 21.03.2024 has decreed the suit in terms of the compromise petition. When the final decree was presented before the Sub- Registrar for registration, the plaintiffs noticed that in the decree there was typographical mistakes in the names and initials of the parties. Hence, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for correction of the names of the parties in the cause title of the plaint. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 25.10.2024 has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 3. The application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC is filed by the plaintiffs seeking for only clerical corrections of the names of the parties in the cause title of the plaint. Under Section 152 of CPC, clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7280 WP No. 600 of 2025 4. The learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submits that the defendants have no objection for allowing the said application. 5. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) The order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, in O.S.No.9784/2015, is set aside. c) The application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, is allowed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54