Annappa vs The Executive Engineer

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 1.7.2014 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 8/2011 on I.A. No. 12 under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w section 151 of CPC.

By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected I.A. No. 12 filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are:

The petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 8/2011 for mandatory injunction and consequential reliefs. The parties have adduced their evidence. The petitioner had filed I.As to re-open the case and to summon the witnesses. The said I.As were rejected. The petitioner had approached this court in W.P. Nos. 69415-69416/2012. This court by its order dated 21.2.2014 dismissed the writ petitions holding that the petitioner has not quantified the compensation and he has not paid the court fee and no mandatory injunction can be granted directing to pay the compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 12 to amend the plaint by adding the proposed amendment. The Trial Court by its order dated 1.7.2014 has rejected I.A. No. 12. Therefore, this writ petition.

The respondents have filed statement of objections contending that the impugned order does not call for interference. The order passed in W.P. Nos. 69415-69416/2012 has become final. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to amend the plaint as prayed in I.A. No. 12.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court has erred while rejecting I.A. No. 12 on the ground that the proposed amendment introduces new and inconsistent case. He also submitted that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the case. It is only amplication of the existing pleadings; Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the petitioner had approached this court in W.P. Nos. 69415-69416/2012 challenging the order passed on I.As to re-open the case and summon the witnesses. This court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the petitioner has not quantified the compensation and he has not paid the court fee and no mandatory injunction can be granted to pay the compensation. To overcome that, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 12. It is not permissible in law. The Trial Court placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, has held that the proposed amendment introduces a new case and it cannot be allowed. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the impugned order calls for interference?

It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.NO. 8/2011 has been filed by the petitioner for mandatory injunction and consequential relief. The petitioner and the respondent have adduced their evidence. The petitioner had filed I.As to re-open the case and summon the witnesses. I.As were rejected. It was challenged in W.P. Nos. 69415-69416/2012. This court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the petitioner has not quantified the compensation and he has not paid court fee and no mandatory injunction can be granted directing to pay the compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 12 to amend the plaint by adding the proposed amendment stating that if the defendant is permitted to instal the tower, the plaintiff will forever loose his land etc., and that the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of damages and compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and the suit is valued for the purpose of court fee at Rs. 2 lakhs and court fee of Rs. 13,625/- is paid on the plaint etc., The proposed amendment is after thought and to overcome the judgment of this court. It cannot be allowed. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.