CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 09 KAR CK 0236

Smt. Lakshmamma and Others vs Sri Chikkanna and Sri Ningappa

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 28 September 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi Malimath, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 3907 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

6 paragraphs · 366 words

Ravi Malimath

1.

The petitioners - plaintiffs filed a suit for partition in the year 2007. In the year 2010, an application under Order - 6, Rule - 17, read with Section - 151 of C.P.C., was filed seeking amendment of the plaint. By the impugned order the trial Court rejected the same. Hence, the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. That the fact sought to be amended was not within their knowledge and that they came to know of the same only when the written statement was filed. Hence, the application requires to be allowed.

2.

Even otherwise, in an earlier proceeding, this Hon''ble Court in an order dated 18.08.2010, in Writ Petition No. 22947/2010, has held that, if the plaintiffs were to make an application seeking amendment of the plaint, it is for the trial Court to consider the same keeping in view the observations made therein and in accordance with law. Hence, the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application seeking amendment.

3.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents defends, the impugned order.

4.

On hearing the learned counsels and on examining the impugned order, I do not find any error committed by the trial Court that calls for interference. What is sought to be amended is the explanation to the plea of the plaint. The burden of proving the Will has been cast upon the defendants in terms of issue No. 1. There is no issue on the plaintiffs, which they are called upon to prove. Under these circumstances, the amendment sought for is not necessary. Even otherwise, the plea of the petitioners is only after the written statement is filed. The application is filed in the year 2010. This is yet another ground on which the application requires to be rejected. No hardship will be caused nor any of: their legal rights would be affected by rejection of this application, since the burden of issue No. 2 is cast on the defendants and not on the plaintiffs.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.