CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 03 KAR CK 0050

R. Vijaya Kumar vs Mrs. Muniyammanni and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 7 March 2012 · Citation: (2012) 3 KarLJ 93

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhash B. Adi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No''s. 6786 and 7217 of 2012 (GM-CPC)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 342 words

Subhash B. Adi, J.—These writ petitions are directed against the order on I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 filed by the petitioner, one under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and another u/s 151 of CPC. Petitioner-defendant 2 had sought for amendment of the written statement for incorporating para 13-A. He also filed another application in I.A. No. VII seeking counter-claim against the plaintiffs. Both the applications have been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 11th January, 2012, as against which, these writ petitions have been filed.

2.

Respondents 1 to 3-plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S. No. 15590 of 2006. In response to the summons, this defendant has filed a written statement on 22-7-2006 and the application for counter-claim was filed on 28-3-2011. The counter-claim could have been filed either before filing the written statement or before a day fixed for filing the written statement as contemplated under Order 8, Rule 6-A of CPC.

3.

As far as application I.A. No. VI is concerned, petitioner''s defence in the written statement was that, he had denied the entire claim of the plaintiffs and he had even denied that the first plaintiff has not executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of first defendant. Now he wants to seek amendment of the written statement, which would have an effect of taking away the admissions, which are already made by him in the original written statement.

4.

No doubt, the amendment application is required to be construed liberally and the defendant could also raise inconsistent plea. But if the written statement is already filed and subsequent amendment, if it has any effect of taking away the admission, such amendment could not be allowed. Apart from this, amendment to the written statement is sought at the stage when the matter is set down for evidence and evidence is already commended. Having regard to the circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the order of the Trial Court.

Accordingly, both the petitions fail and are dismissed.