Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2999 WP No. 145816 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 145816 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. TATYASAB S/O APPA DARURE, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.
R/O: KAGWAD, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADV) AND:
SHRI. SUBHASH S/O APPA DARURE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL.
R/O: KAGWAD, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRIYUTHS. P.G. NAIK & G.B. NAIK, ADVS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT ON IA.NO.14 DATED 24.02.2020 IN O.S.NO.653/2002 ON THE COURT OF II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2999 WP No. 145816 of 2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the
order on I.A.No.14 dated 24.02.2020 passed in O.S.No.653/2002 by the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani.
2.
Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for the relief of possession in O.S.No.653/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Athani. The said suit was dismissed with cost vide judgment and decree dated 19.03.2016. The respondent, aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.653/2002 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.37/2014 on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Athani. The learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part vide
judgment dated 11.10.2019, and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.653/2002 and remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2999 WP No. 145816 of 2020
suit was restored before the trial Court. The respondent filed an application in I.A.No.14 seeking to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing the objection. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, allowed I.A.No.14 vide order dated 24.02.2020. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.14 filed this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and
learned counsel for the respondent.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent by way of proposed amendment is changing the entire suit schedule property which changes the nature of the suit. Hence, the application filed by the respondent is not maintainable. She further submits that, the trial Court has not assigned reasons for passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.
6. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2999 WP No. 145816 of 2020
7. It is not in disputed that, the respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.653/2002 for the relief of possession. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.03.2016. The respondent, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2016 passed in the aforesaid suit preferred an appeal in R.A.No.37/2014. The Appellate Court, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in the said suit and further permitted the trial Court to take the following actions within the time-frame indicated below:
1. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 11.11.2019 without waiting for further notice. 2. The plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint to give specific description of the suit property if he choses to do so within 10 days from the date of appearance. 3. If there is amendment of plaint the defendant is permitted to file additional written statement if any within 10 days there afterwards. 4. The trial court shall frame the issues as indicated above and additional issues if required within 10 days there afterwards. 5. The plaintiff shall lead further evidence if any within 15 days from the date of framing issues. 6. The defendant shall lead further evidence if any within 15 days from the date of closure of the plaintiff’s evidence. 7. Both the parties are directed to address their argument within 10 days from the date of closure of defendant’s evidence. 8. The trial court is at liberty to fix the dates within the time frame fixed and to pass suitable orders either
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2999 WP No. 145816 of 2020
U/O.9 or U/O.17 CPC as the case may be if the parties do not comply with the direction. 8. From the perusal of the judgment passed in R.A.No.37/2014, the Appellate Court has permitted the respondent to amend the plaint to give a specific description of the suit property, if he chooses to do so within ten days from the date of appearance. Pursuant to the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.14 seeking amendment of the plaint, giving a specific description of the suit schedule properties.
Though, the petitioner contended that, it changes the nature of the suit schedule property, as the Appellate Court has permitted the respondent to amend the plaint to give specific description of the suit property, the respondent has filed an application. 9. The
judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.37/2014 was not challenged by the petitioner and the same has attained finality. If the proposed amendment application is rejected the respondent would be involved in a multiplicity of litigation, and to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, the trial Court was justified in passing the
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2999 WP No. 145816 of 2020
impugned order. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
ORDER Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE
BVK CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18